title: Case C-581/15: Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-581/15) (1)

   (2016/C 326/35)
   Language of the case: Czech
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-170/01: Action brought on 24 July 2001 by Vieira Argentina SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.10.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   —      compared inappropriately the technical perform-
                                                                                ances of the tenders and evaluated them on different
                                                                                financial grounds, and
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to accept the
      SAGEM’s tender submitted for the Eurodac AFIS Central
      Unit;                                                                   —      amended the purpose of the benchmark tests, added
                                                                                a rule to compare the variable costs of the tenders
—     annul the Commission’s decision to award the contract                          and took into account only a few items of the
      for the Eurodac AFIS Central unit to BULL.                                     financial compulsory reply form, although the Ten-
                                                                                dering Specifications provided that all the items
                                                                                were to be taken into account.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —    Manifest error of assessment. It is pointed out in this
                                                                              regard that the Commission assessed the tenders by using
                                                                              different bases. Concerning the benchmark tests, in
                                                                              particular the performance test, the Commission con-
The applicant in the present case, a company incorporated                     cluded that BULL’s solution was faster than the applicant’s
under French law, seeks the annulment of the Commission’s                     whereas none of the tenderers used the same number of
decisions rejecting the tender which it submitted in response                 pieces of equipment. Concerning the financial evaluation,
to invitation to tender no. DG JAI A2/2000/002 concerning                     the Commission used different bases to compare the
the contract for the ‘EURODAC’ Automated Fingerprint identi-                  operational support proposed by the tenders.
fication System (AFIS) Central Unit, and accepting the tender
submitted by BULL.
In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law:
—     infringement of the duty to state the reasons on which
      challenged decisions are based. It alleges in this respect
      that the Commission                                                Action brought on 24 July 2001 by Vieira Argentina SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
      —     did not establish whether the qualifying criteria had
            been fulfilled;
                                                                                (Case T-170/01)
      —     did not provide the detailed marks corresponding to
            the weighting of each technical criterion;                                            (2001/C 289/70)
      —     provided very partial results of the benchmark tests;                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
      —     could not allege protection of business secrets, and
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      —     provided unclear and equivocal explanations, as              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
            regards both the selected tenderer’s identity and the        European Communities on 24 July 2001 by Vieira Argentina
            question relating to high matching accuracy.                 SA, a company with registered offices in Buenos Aires,
                                                                         represented by D. Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
                                                                         Domı́nguez Pérez, Lawyers.
—     infringement of principles of equal treatment and of
      transparency, in as much as the Commission:
      —     gave the tenderers very different information relating       The applicant claims that the Court should:
            to the same technical requirements of the EURO-
            DAC AFIS Central Unit;
                                                                         —    declare that, by failing to define its position within a
                                                                              period of two months from the date when notice was
      —     amended the technical criterion relating to high                  given, being 18 May 2001, the Commission failed to
            matching accuracy during the evaluation procedure;                fulfil its obligations;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/31
—      adopt such measures as it deems necessary;                          Action brought on 25 July 2001 by Asahi Vet Sa against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—      order the Commission of the European Communities to
       pay the applicant the costs of the proceedings in their
       entirety.                                                                                (Case T-173/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/71)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant is a joint-enterprise company governed by
Argentinean law, established by a European Communities
undertaking and an Argentinean ship owning company, to                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
which the Commission granted aid by decision of 25 July                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1995 (1). In 1997 the Commission decided to initiate a                     European Communities on 25 July 2001 by Asahi Vet SA of
procedure to reduce the aid granted, without first suspending              Rubı́, Barcelona (Spain), represented by Dr Carsten Bittner.
payment of the balance of the aid by formal decision (2).
On 19 March 2001 the Commission adopted a decision
withdrawing the balance of the aid. The applicant was excluded
from the scope of application of that decision (3).                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation No 937/2001 of 11 May
Faced with that situation, on 18 May 2001, the applicant                         2001 (1) in so far as it limits the provisional authorisation
formally called upon the Commission to pay the balance of                        of the additives Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (ToyoCerin) for
the aid still outstanding. That request satisfies all the legal                  fattening chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle,
requirements laid down in case-law. The Commission failed to                     fattening rabbits and breeding rabbits to the period up to
define its position with regard to that request within the two-                  1 March 2002;
month period provided for in Article 232 EC.
                                                                           —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that the Commission was under an
obligation to act, given that it is the body responsible for
ordering the payment of the aid and remitting the Community
funds in question to the Argentinean authorities, who merely
execute the payment. Thus, by failing to answer the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments
request, the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations.
                                                                           The applicant is a subsidiary of the Japanese company Asahi
                                                                           Vet Japan Co. Ltd, which developed the feeding stuff additive
                                                                           ToyoCerin and is the only manufacturer of that additive in the
                                                                           world. The applicant produces the additive for the European
                                                                           market in Spain and distributes it in Europe. In that capacity,
                                                                           the applicant is the applicant in a procedure for Community
(1) Aid granted within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC)           authorisation in respect of the additive ToyoCerin pursuant to
    No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on the conclusion of the               Article 3 and following of Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).
    Agreement between the European Economic Community and the
    Argentine Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector (OJ
    1993 L 318, p. 1).
(2) The two addressees of the decision to grant the aid (the Com-          The applicant first applied for a Community authorisation in
    munity undertaking and the joint enterprise) then brought an           respect of ToyoCerin for all categories of animal in 1991, and
    action in non-contractual liability, claiming damages on account       a temporary authorisation for ToyoCerin in respect of the
    of the Commission’s unlawful action (Case T-44/01 Eduardo
                                                                           following categories of animal was granted in 1994: rearing
    Vieira and Vieira Argentinav Commission, OJ 1997 C 134, p. 26).
                                                                           pigs, piglets and sows. That temporary authorisation was
(3) The decision was challenged by its addressee, the Community            periodically extended until April 1999. As regards other
    undertaking, in Case T-126/01 Eduardo Vieirav Commission, ECR          animals, such as fattening chickens, cattle and fattening rabbits,
    II-0000.
                                                                           ToyoCerin was authorised on a temporary basis by Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 1411/1999 (3). That temporary authorisation was
                                                                           extended to 20 February 2001 by Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 2697/2000 (4). The use of ToyoCerin was not authorised
                                                                           for a period of more than three months under that regulation.


title: Case T-268/13: Action brought on 21 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/44

         Action brought on 21 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-268/13)
   2013/C 207/75
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer, G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 1264 final of 7 March 2013, notified on 11 March 2013, for the reasons set out in the three pleas in law.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the Italian government challenges Commission Decision C(2013) 1264 final of 7 March 2013, notified on 11 March 2013, in which, executing the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 2011 in Case C-496/09, the Commission instructed the Italian Republic to pay the amount of EUR 16 533 000 as a penalty payment.
   By that judgment, the Court had, inter alia, ordered the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of an amount calculated by multiplying the basic amount of EUR 30 million by the percentage of the unlawful aid compared to the total amount not yet recovered on the date of delivery of the judgment, for every six months of delay in implementing the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 Commission v Italy.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Article 260(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 260(3) TFEU: infringement of the judgment being executed (judgment of 17 November 2011 in Case C-496/09 Commission v Italy) resulting from an erroneous interpretation of the paragraph of that judgment which, for the purposes of calculating the penalty payment, took as a reference the ‘amount not yet recovered on the date of delivery of the judgment’.

                           —

                           The Italian government submits that that executory paragraph of the judgment must be interpreted as referring not to the delivery date of the judgment but the date in which, in the proceedings, the period for adducing evidence in the proceedings terminated, that is to say the moment in which the factual situation on the basis of which the Court gave final judgment crystallised procedurally. The Italian Government submits that account must be taken of the recovery activity that it carried out in the course of the proceedings, but after the end of the investigative phase, in order to reduce the six-monthly penalty payment.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 260(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 260(3) TFEU: infringement of the judgment being executed, resulting from an erroneous interpretation of the paragraph of that judgment in which it is provided, for the purposes of calculating the penalty payment due for each six-month period, that account is not to be taken of the amount of aid ‘that has not yet been recovered, or not shown to have been recovered, at the end of the period concerned’.

                           —

                           The Italian government submits that that executory paragraph of the judgment must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of that assessment, it is the production of the supporting evidence for the six-month reference period that is important and not the fact that it had been brought to the Commission’s attention before the end of that six-month period. The Italian government considers that the Commission’s interpretation to the contrary, according to which the Italian government is obliged to submit any evidence for the calculation of the six-monthly penalty payment by the last day of the relevant six-month period at the latest, thus excluding from the calculation any amount which was recovered during that period but which was only communicated afterwards to the Commission, is contrary to the principle of loyal cooperation and is not justified by the requirement imposed by the Court, which results in shortening in an impermissible manner the time at the Italian authorities’ disposal to comply with that requirement and thereby reduce that six-monthly penalty amount.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 260(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 260(3) TFEU: infringement of the judgment being executed, in relation to the debt owed by undertakings which have ‘have entered into an arrangement with creditors’ or are in ‘supervised administration’.

                           —

                           The decision does not deduct the debt owed by such undertakings which has resulted from related insolvency proceedings from the aid remaining due at the end of the six-month reference period, even though, according to the Italian government, the Member State took all the necessary care to recover that debt and, therefore, that debt should be excluded from the amount of aid owed under that judgment.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95: Federal Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Guarantee given by the public authorities in favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the acquisition of an undertaking in another sector - Diversification of the activities of the recipient undertaking - Recovery)

text:
No C 9/2             I EN 1                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 1 . 97
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH (represented by Gerhard
17 October 1996, the operative part of which is as                       Wiedemann ) and Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG ( represented
follows :                                                                by Hans-Jürgen Rabe ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ben Smulders and Jürgen
1 . A Member State may not make grant of the tax                         Grunwald ) — application for annulment of Commission
     advantage provided for in Article 5 (1 ) of Council                 Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
     Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common                  awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by
     system of taxation applicable in the case of parent                 Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG,
     companies and subsidiaries of different Member States               facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from
     subject to the condition that, at the moment when                   Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court
     profits are distributed, the parent company must have               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     held a minimum of 25 % of the capital of the                        of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.
     subsidiary for a period at least equal to that set by               Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.
     that Member State pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the                  Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     Directive. It is for the Member States to draw up rules             a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
     for ensuring compliance with this minimum period, in
     accordance with the procedures laid down in their
     domestic law. Those States are not obliged under the                1 . Annuls Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April
     Directive to grant the advantage immediately, on the                      1993 concerning aid awarded by the German
     basis of a unilateral undertaking by the parent                           Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH
     company to observe the minimum holding period.                           to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp
                                                                              Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH to
2 . Where a Member State has exercised the option                              Bremer Vulkan AG;
     provided for in Article 3 (2) of the Directive, parent
     companies may rely directly on the rights conferred by
     Article 5 (1 ) and (3) of the Directive before national
                                                                         2 . Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     courts, if those companies observe the holding period
                                                                               to pay the costs.
     set by that Member State.
3 . Community law does not require a Member State                        (M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 and OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 .
     which, when transposing the Directive, stipulated that                   1995 , p. 9 .
     the minimum holding period set pursuant to                          (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
     Article 3 (2) must be completed at the time when the
     profits that are the subject of the tax advantage
     afforded by Article 5 are distributed to compensate
     the parent company for damage which it may have
     incurred by reason of the error thus made.
0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10. 12 . 1994 , pp . 8 and 10 .                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(2 ) OJ No L 225 , 20 . 8 . 1990, p . 6 .
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                                                                         in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (' )
                           ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          (Equal pay for men and women — Right to join an
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                         occupational pension scheme — Right to payment of a
in Joined Cases C-329/93 , C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                             retirement pension — Part-time workers)
Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the
                   European Communities 0 )                                                            ( 97/C 9/04 )
(State aid — Guarantee given by the public authorities in
favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
acquisition of an undertaking in another sector —
Diversification of the activities of the recipient
                    undertaking — Recovery)
                               ( 97/C 9/03 )
                                                                           (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           In Case C-435/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Rotterdam
                                                                         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court) (Netherlands ), for a
In Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder ), Hanseatische                 court between Francina Johanna Maria Dietz and


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2001 in Case C-429/99: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Telecommunications — Directives 90/388/EEC and 96/19/EC — Voice telephony — "Callback" services — Portugal Telecom)

text:
22.12.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 369/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 16 October 2001                                                        of 25 October 2001
in Case C-429/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Portuguese Republic (1)                          in Case C-475/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz): Firma
                                                                                Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz (1)
(Telecommunications — Directives 90/388/EEC and
96/19/EC — Voice telephony — ‘Callback’ services —
                           Portugal Telecom)                               (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81
                                                                           EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Transport of sick or injured
                                                                           persons by ambulance — Special or exclusive rights —
                            (2001/C 369/04)                                Restriction of competition — Public interest task — Justifi-
                                                                                cation — Effect on trade between Member States)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/05)
(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 Case C-429/99: Commission of the European Communities                                       in the European Court Reports)
(Agent: A. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:
L. Fernandes, P. de Pitta e Cunha and N. Ruiz) application for
a declaration that, by not adopting all the measures necessary
to comply with the fourth subparagraph of Article 2(2) of
                                                                           In Case C-475/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberverwaltungs-
competition in the markets for telecommunications services
                                                                           gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
(OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), in the version resulting from
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between Firma
Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
                                                                           Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Sildwestpfalz, joined parties:
Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of
                                                                           Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz eV,
full competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996
                                                                           Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz eV,
L 74, p. 13), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           and Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses, Mainz — on the
obligations under that provision — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                           interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colne-
                                                                           Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC — the Court, composed
ric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, and V. Skouris,
                                                                           of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmer-
given a judgment on 16 October 2001, in which it:
                                                                           mans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
1.    Declares that by postponing until 1 January 2000 the abolition       on 25 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
      of the exclusive rights enjoyed by Portugal Telecom in respect of
      the ‘call-back’ system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to        —     A national provision such as Paragraph 18(3) of the Rettungs-
      fulfil its obligations under the fourth subparagraph of Article            dienstgesetz, as enacted on 22 April 1991, under which the
      2(2) of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990                    authorisation necessary for providing ambulance transport
      on competition in the markets for telecommunications services,             services will be refused by the competent authority if its use
      in the version resulting from Commission Directive 96/19/EC                might prejudice the functioning and profitability of the public
      of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388 with regard                     emergency ambulance service, the operation of which has been
      to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications            an entrusted to medical aid organisations like those involved in
      markets;                                                                   the main proceedings, is of a nature such as to confer on the
                                                                                latter organisations a special or exclusive right within the
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           meaning of Article 90(1) of the Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC);
                                                                           —     where the decision to grant or refuse that authorisation is taken
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                         unilaterally by the competent authorities entirely on their own
                                                                                responsibility, according to the conditions laid down by law and
                                                                                in the absence of any agreement or concertation by those
                                                                                authorities with the medical aid organisations themselves, or


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-93/02 P: Biret International SA v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC — Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from third countries of meat from farm animals to which those substances have been administered — Application for damages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body)

text:
15.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 275/19
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 30 September 2003                                                         of 30 September 2003
in Case C-93/02 P: Biret International SA v Council of the                   in Case C-94/02 P: Établissements Biret et Cie SA v Council
                         European Union (1)                                                       of the European Union (1)
(Appeal — Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/                       (Appeal — Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/
EC — Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a                   EC — Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a
hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from                        hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from
third countries of meat from farm animals to which those                     third countries of meat from farm animals to which those
substances have been administered — Application for dam-                     substances have been administered — Application for dam-
ages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the                            ages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the
agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Appli-                         agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Appli-
cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Rec-                         cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Rec-
ommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement                     ommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement
                                 Body)                                                                       Body)
                          (2003/C 275/32)                                                              (2003/C 275/33)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-93/02 P, Biret International SA, a company in                      In Case C-94/02 P, Établissements Biret et Cie SA, established
judicial liquidation, established in Paris (France) (represented             in Paris (France), (represented by S. Rodrigues): Appeal against
by M. de Thoré and S. Rodrigues): Appeal against the judgment                the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   Communities (First Chamber) of 11 January 2002 in Case
(First Chamber) of 11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00 Biret                    T-210/00 Biret et Cie v Council [2002] ECR II-47, seeking to
International v Council [2002] ECR II-17, seeking to have that               have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:              being: Council of the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and
Council of the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and                       F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by United Kingdom of Great
F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by United Kingdom of Great                Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agents: P. M. Ormond), and
Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agent: P. M. Ormond), and                     Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: T. Chris-
Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: T. Chris-                   toforou and A. Bordes), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
toforou and A. Bordes), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-                  guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rappor-
guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporte-           teur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of
ur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of                       Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                   F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    30 September 2003, in which it:
30 September 2003, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the appeal;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2.    Orders Établissements Biret et Cie SA to bear its own costs and
2.    Orders Biret International SA to bear its own costs and to pay               to pay two thirds of the costs of the Council of the European
      two thirds of the costs of the Council of the European Union;                Union;
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one third of          3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one third of
      its own costs;                                                               its own costs;
4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to                    Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to
      bear their own costs.                                                        bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                    (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case C-521/07: Action brought on 23 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/10

         Action brought on 23 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-521/07)
   (2008/C 37/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and R. Lyal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not exempting dividends paid to companies established in Norway or Iceland from withholding tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to Netherlands tax law, tax on dividends is not withheld when a Netherlands company pays a dividend to another company established in the Netherlands which holds at least 5 % of the shares of the company which pays the dividend; by contrast the tax on dividends is withheld when the company which receives the dividend is established in Norway or Iceland, unless the receiving company owns at least 25 % (Norway) or 10 % (Iceland) of the shares in the Netherlands company which pays the dividend.
   The Commission takes the view that Netherlands tax law thus gives rise to discrimination between companies established in Norway or Iceland and those established in the Netherlands. That constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital between the Netherlands and Norway and Iceland, contrary to Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (‘the EEA Agreement’) concerning the free movement of capital, a provision which, in essence, corresponds to Article 56 EC. The situation of Norwegian and Icelandic companies which have stakes in the capital of a Netherlands company is in fact objectively comparable to that of a Netherlands company holding such a stake. The Netherlands rules cannot be justified. Whilst it true that Member States may take measures to prevent abuse, those measures must none the less be proportionate to the objective pursued, which is not the case here.

      (1)  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994.


title: Case T-488/13: Action brought on 2 September 2013 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/16

         Action brought on 2 September 2013 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
   (Case T-488/13)
   2013/C 352/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J. Schneiders, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2013 (Case R 0935/2012-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘engineering for a better world’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 244 416

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-272/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Tayto Group Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2016 in Case T-816/14: Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/6

         Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Tayto Group Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2016 in Case T-816/14: Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)
   (Case C-272/16 P)
   (2017/C 078/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Tayto Group Ltd (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
   By order of 27 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-432/08 P: Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Officials — Social security — Payment of medical expenses — Implied rejection of the application seeking reimbursement in full of medical expenses incurred by the applicant — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/9

         Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-432/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Social security - Payment of medical expenses - Implied rejection of the application seeking reimbursement in full of medical expenses incurred by the applicant - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 134/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 July 2008 in Joined Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of two implied decisions of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100 % of certain medical costs incurred by the applicant and an application for an order that the Commission pay to the applicant amounts in respect of certain medical costs

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-456/05: Action brought on  30 December 2005  — Gütermann v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/45

         Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Gütermann v Commission
   (Case T-456/05)
   (2006/C 60/85)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Gütermann Aktiengesellschaft (Gutach-Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter, B. Kasten and S. Orlikowski-Wolf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the Decision in so far as it declares that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement as regards Sweden, Norway and Finland also in the period from January 1990 up to and including December 1993;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4,021 million on the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 final of 14 September 2005 in Case 38.337 — PO/Thread (amended by the defendant's decision of 13 October 2005). In the contested decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
   In support of its application the applicant is relying on four pleas in law.
   First, it alleges breach of Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003. (1) In this connection it submits that the finding as to the duration of the infringements in Article 1(1) of the contested decision is incorrect.
   In its second plea in law the applicant submits that there has been an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (2) or of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. It considers that Article 2 of the contested decision infringes fundamental principles regarding the assessment of fines. In addition, it is submitted that those provisions were infringed by Article 2 of the contested decision due to misapplication of the 1996 Leniency Notice.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 2 of the contested decision amounts to an infringement of the principle of proportionality as insufficient regard was had to the individual position of the applicant in fixing the fine.

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

      (2)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).


title: Case C-628/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against International Jet Management GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling  — Article 18 TFEU  — Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of nationality  — Commercial flights from a third State to a Member State  — Legislation of a Member State providing that European Union air carriers not having an operating licence issued by that State must obtain an authorisation for each flight from a third State)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against International Jet Management GmbH
   (Case C-628/11) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 18 TFEU - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of nationality - Commercial flights from a third State to a Member State - Legislation of a Member State providing that European Union air carriers not having an operating licence issued by that State must obtain an authorisation for each flight from a third State))
   2014/C 142/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig

      Party in the main proceedings

   International Jet Management GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig — Interpretation of Article 18 TFEU — Commercial flights from a third State to a Member State — Legislation of a Member State providing that air carriers not having an operating licence issued by that State must obtain an authorisation for each flight from a third State — Financial penalty imposed on a Community air carrier not complying with that legislation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18 TFEU, which enshrines the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, is applicable to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a first Member State requires an air carrier holding an operating licence issued by a second Member State to obtain an authorisation to enter the airspace of the first Member State to operate private flights in non-scheduled traffic from a third country to that first Member State, although such an authorisation is not required for air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State.

               2.

               Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a first Member State which requires, on pain of a fine, an air carrier holding an operating licence issued by a second Member State to obtain an authorisation to enter the airspace of the first Member State to operate private flights in non-scheduled traffic from a third country to that first Member State, although such an authorisation is not required for air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State, and which makes the grant of that authorisation subject to production of a declaration confirming that the air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State are either not willing to operate those flights or are prevented from operating them.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17. 3. 2012.


title: Case T-636/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/13

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)
   (Case T-636/11)
   2012/C 65/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hostel Drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aznar textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2;

               —

               reject the opposition;

               —

               refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MY drap’ for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 24

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘BON DRAP’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 26, which is well known in the Community

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the conflicting marks are not similar and there is no likelihood of confusion.


title: Joined Cases C-101/07 P and C-110/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV)/Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) v Commission of the European Communities, French Republic (Appeals — Competition — Market in beef and veal — Agreement between national federations of farmers and slaughterers with the object of suspending imports of beef and veal and fixing a minimum purchase price — Fines — Regulation No 17 — Article 15(2) — Taking into account of the turnover of undertakings which are members of the federations)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV)/Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) v Commission of the European Communities, French Republic
   (Joined Cases C-101/07 P and C-110/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Market in beef and veal - Agreement between national federations of farmers and slaughterers with the object of suspending imports of beef and veal and fixing a minimum purchase price - Fines - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Taking into account of the turnover of undertakings which are members of the federations)
   (2009/C 44/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) (represented by M. Ponsard, avocat) (C-101/07 P), Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) (represented by V. Ledoux and B. Neouze, avocats) (C-110/07 P),

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 FNCBV and Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants' application primarily, to annul Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) or, alternatively, to cancel or reduce the fine imposed by that decision — Constituent elements of a cartel — Need for acquiescence of the parties — Method of calculating the fines — Entitlement to take into account the turnover of the members of an association where it does not have formal power to bind its members — Duty to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Coop de France bétail et viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV), Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL) and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-545/15: Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/19

         Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-545/15)
   (2016/C 016/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Heller, K. Herrmann and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting and bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 24(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Poland, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, for its failure to meet its obligation to notify the measures implementing Directive 2012/19/EU a penalty payment at a daily rate of EUR 71 610 from the day on which judgment is delivered in this case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2012/19/EU expired on 14 February 2014.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 197, p. 38.


title: Case C-276/08: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Miloud Rimoumi, Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick v Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Miloud Rimoumi, Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick v Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration
   (Case C-276/08) (1)

   (2008/C 327/38)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: Case T-3/00: Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas against the Council of the European Union and the European Central Bank

text:
29.4.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/35
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges and L. Harings,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                       of 14 February 2000                                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,
                                                                           8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and G. Braun) — application,
in Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa v Commission
                                                                           first, for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation
   of the European Communities and Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (EEC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down
                                                                           details of rules for applying Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999
                  (Manifest lack of jurisdiction)                          as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk
                                                                           powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such
                         (2000/C 122/51)                                   skimmed-milk powder (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 3) and, second,
                                                                           for a declaration that Regulation (EEC) No 1105/68 of the
                                                                           Commission of 27 July 1968 on detailed rules for granting aid
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        for skimmed-milk for use as feed (OJ, English Special Edition,
                                                                           1968 (II), p. 379), as last amended by Commission Regulation
In Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa, established at                    (EC) No 1802/95 of 25 July 1995 amending the regulations
Assogo, Italy, represented by C. Cigolini, G. Durazzo and                  that fixed, prior to 1 February 1995, certain prices and
M. Hengel, against Commission of the European Communities                  amounts in the market in milk and milk products of which the
and Italian Republic — application for annulment of Com-                   value in ecus was adapted as a result of the abolition of the
mission Decision C(1999) 1596 def. of 17 June 1999 finding                 correction factor for agricultural conversion rates (OJ 1995
that steps should be taken for the post-clearance recovery of              L 174, p. 27) is to continue to apply until the Court has given
import duties which the applicant was not required to pay in               its ruling on the substance of the case — the President of the
respect of imports of tuna fish from Turkey — the Court of                 Court of First Instance made an order on 15 February 2000,
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-              the operative part of which is as follows:
dent, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2000, the operative                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
part of which is as follows:
                                                                           2. The costs are reserved.
1. The action is partially dismissed, in so far as it was brought
    against the Italian Republic.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs, in so far as the action was
    brought against the Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                   Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N.
                                                                           Pitsiorlas against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                                the European Central Bank
                                                                                (Case T-3/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/53)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                       of 15 February 2000
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                           European Central Bank (ECB) was brought before the Court of
in Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission
                                                                           First Instance on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas,
                of the European Communities
                                                                           residing in Thessaloniki, 8 Odos N. Koudouriotou (Greece),
                                                                           represented by Dimitris Papafilippou, Barrister.
(Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility of the main
                              action)
                                                                           The applicant asks the Court of First Instance to:
                         (2000/C 122/52)                                   — uphold the action in its entirety;
                                                                           — order the production of evidence to clarify the circum-
                   (Language of the case: German)                               stances in which the decisions of the two Community
                                                                                institutions were adopted;
In Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl, residing at Damme (Germany),
Günter Wiegert, residing at Velen (Germany), Firma Molkerei                — annul the negative decisions of the Council of 30 July
Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG, established at                            1999 and of the ECB of 8 November and 6 July 1999
Wagenfeld (Germany), Josef Brüninghoff, residing at Bocholt                     entirely depriving the applicant of the right of access to
(Germany) and Lüdger Nienhaus, residing at Borken-Gemen                         the Basle/Nyborg Agreement;
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.4.2000
— order the Council and the ECB to pay the costs.                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Febru-
                                                                              ary 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational cause of
                                                                              his wife’s illness;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the fees and expenses incurred
                                                                              by the applicant in accordance with Article 23(2) of the
I. Against the Council’s decision                                             Rules on the insurance of officials of the European
                                                                              Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
                                                                              pational disease;
    1. Infringement of the fundamental principle of protec-
         tion of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the costs.
         principle of sound administration, deceit and total bad
         faith on the part of the Council
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of Com-
         munity law concerning the citizen’s right of access to
         documents and of Article 1 of Council Decision                   According to the applicant, his wife suffered a high degree of
         93/731                                                           exposure to contaminating agents during her working life, in
                                                                          particular exposure to asbestos while she was working in the
    3. Infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty: absence              ‘Berlaymont’ Building from 1974 to 1979. In his view, it
         of legal reasoning.                                              follows that the lung cancer of which his wife died had an
                                                                          occupational cause.
II. Against the ECB’s decision                                            In support of his claims, he alleges:
    1. Infringement of essential procedural requirements (lack            — that the opinion of the medical committee was unlawful.
         of reasoning) and misuse of powers
                                                                              The meeting of the medical committee took place under
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of trans-                    improper circumstances. The committee’s opinion did not
         parency and the right of access to documents.                        express a view as to certain important matters, was
                                                                              based on inaccuracies and showed no comprehensible
                                                                              connection between the medical findings and the con-
                                                                              clusions it contains;
                                                                          — unequal treatment and a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                              The Commission recognised the occupational cause of
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Camacho-Fer-                         the disease of another official who developed pathology
nandes against Commission of the European Communi-                            absolutely similar to that of the applicant’s wife, following
                                ties                                          exposure to asbestos.
                          (Case T-20/00)
                         (2000/C 122/54)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sabbioni
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-22/00)
European Communities on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Cama-
cho-Fernandes, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by                                      (2000/C 122/55)
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3
Rue des Foyers.                                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 October 1999                       European Communities on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sab-
    rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged pursuant to                bioni, represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Marina S. Mori,
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the appointing         of the Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar,
    authority’s decision refusing to acknowledge the occu-                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    pational cause of the lung cancer from which his wife died;           Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.


title: Case C-122/14: Order of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain) — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment v Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Order for payment procedure — Enforcement proceedings)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/2

         Order of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain) — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment v Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa
   (Case C-122/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Order for payment procedure - Enforcement proceedings))
   (2016/C 326/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment

      Defendant: Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which do not allow the court dealing with the enforcement of a payment order to determine of its own motion, even though it has all the elements of law and fact necessary for that purpose, the unfairness of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer which gave rise to that order, where, in the absence of opposition to the order by the consumer, the court

      (1)  OJ C 159 of 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-477/07: Order of the Court of 9 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Gerlach & Co. NV v Belgische Staat (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure — Community Customs Code — Concepts of entry in the accounts and communication of the amount of duty to the debtor — Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt — Recovery of the customs debt)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/11

         Order of the Court of 9 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Gerlach & Co. NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-477/07) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Community Customs Code - Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor - Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt - Recovery of the customs debt)
   (2008/C 313/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerlach & Co. NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 217 and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) (now Council Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1)) — Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor — Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt — Recovery of the debt
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of the duty to be recovered referred to therein is the ‘entry in the accounts’ of that amount as defined in Article 217(1) of that regulation and that that entry in the accounts is to be distinguished from the recording of that duty in the accounts of the own resources referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources.

               2.

               Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as meaning that the communication of the amount of duty to be recovered must have been preceded by the entry in the accounts of that amount by the customs authorities of the Member State and that, in the absence of due notification in accordance with that provision, that amount may not be recovered by those authorities. However, those authorities remain entitled to proceed with a new notification of that amount, in accordance with the conditions laid down by that provision and the limitation rules in force at the time the customs debt arose.

      (1)  OJ C 8 of 12.1.2007.


title: Case T-276/02: Action brought on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187 asbl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.11.2002
technique’. Using this technique, the transactions of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
applicants that are made at a price higher then the average
price, are brought down to a price equal to the average price.
According to the applicants, the Commission did not apply                   The applicant is an association bringing together more than
the average-to-transaction methodology correctly as a result                230 multinational companies, who together have invested
of using the ‘zeroing technique’. The applicants submit that                hundreds of millions of euros in the establishment of coordi-
the objective of the average-to-transaction methodology is to               nation centres in Belgium, based on legislation dating from the
ensure a fair comparison and not to yield higher dumping                    early 1980s permitting the establishment of coordination
margins.                                                                    centres for multinational companies. It explains that this
                                                                            legislation was found by the Commission on two separate
                                                                            occasions in 1984 and 1987 to fall outside Community rules
                                                                            on state aids and that, encouraged by these findings, the
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2479/2001 of 17 December
                                                                            coordination centres invested in Belgium and have, over the
     2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
     recordable compact disks originating in Taiwan (OJ L 334, p. 8).
                                                                            last 15 years, significantly expanded their presence there.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing
     a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
     provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact disks        The applicant states that the Commission’s decision to initiate
     originating in Taiwan (OJ L 160, p. 2).                                the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of this
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on               Belgian legislation (the contested decision) abruptly, arbitrarily
     protection against dumped imports from countries not members           and without any adequate reasoning re-classifies it as an aid
     of the European Community (OJ 1996, L 56, p. 1).                       within the meaning of Article 87(1) and reaches preliminary
                                                                            negative conclusions as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                            market, thereby ‘at a stroke’ removing legal certainty and
                                                                            infringing the legitimate expectations of the Belgian Coordi-
                                                                            nation Centres.
                                                                            The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is
                                                                            unlawful, being in breach of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 659/
                                                                            1999, and has no other basis in Community law. The
                                                                            Commission’s alternative legal basis for its decision to the
Action brought on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187 asbl                       effect that it is entitled to reverse a decision taken 15 years
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       earlier (either under Article 1(b)(v) or under general adminis-
                                                                            trative principles) is likewise unfounded in Community law
                                                                            and should be annulled. In particular, this alternative legal
                          (Case T-276/02)                                   basis for the Commission decision infringes the principles of
                                                                            legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The applicant
                                                                            considers therefore that, especially taking into account the
                          (2002/C 289/52)                                   novel legal basis upon which the decision purports to be taken
                                                                            and the substantial economic interests involved, the decision
                                                                            is inadequately reasoned, in breach of Article 253, and should
                     (Language of the case: English)                        be annulled.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187
asbl, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr Alastair Sutton,                 Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Dyson Limited
barrister and Mr James Killick, barrister.                                  against the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (Case T-278/02)
—      Annul the Commission’s Notice of its decision to initiate                                     (2002/C 289/53)
       the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty
       published in the OJ C 147, p. 2 on 20 June 2002.                                        (Language of the case: English)
—      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            An action against the Office for the Harmonisation in the
—      Take such other or further steps as justice may require.             Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance


C 305/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.12.2002
      provided for in Annex II A or II B to Directive 75/442/                      Removal from the register of Case C-246/99 ( 1)
      EEC (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2), or
      himself recovers or disposes of such waste, the Italian
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4                                (2002/C 305/33)
      and 8 of that directive;
2.    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           By order of 11 September 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-246/99: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
The first paragraph of Article 4 of the directive provides that
Member States are to adopt the necessary measures to ensure
that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering
human health and without using processes or methods which
could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to
water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a
nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-434/00 ( 1)
affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
                                                                                (2002/C 305/34)
In the present case, the Italian Republic has not adopted any
appropriate measure to ensure that waste deposited in the
Rodano disposal site is recovered or disposed of without
endangering human health and without using procedures or                   By order of 24 September 2002 the President of the Court of
methods which could harm the environment. Consequently, it                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of the                from the register of Case C-434/00 (Reference for a preliminary
directive.                                                                 ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): G. Cuomo.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
In addition, Article 8 of the directive provides that Member
States are to ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by
a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which
carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the
directive, or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance
with the provisions of the directive. To that end, the owners
or managers of disposal sites are regarded as holders within
the meaning of Article 8.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-120/01 ( 1)
The Italian Republic has failed to adopt the necessary measures
to ensure that the holder of waste deposited in the Rodano                                          (2002/C 305/35)
disposal site has such waste handled by a private or public
collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations
provided for in Annex II A or II B to the directive. Conse-
quently, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of        By order of 9 September 2002 the President of the Court of
the directive.                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-120/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case C-31/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2013 in Case T-536/10 Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs )

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/15

         Appeal brought on 21 January 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2013 in Case T-536/10 Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-31/14 P)
   2014/C 102/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH, Janssen-Cilag GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               dismiss the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2010 in Case R 708/2010-4; in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal that the restriction made by the then applicant to the list of goods and services is imprecise if it takes as its basis the criterion of the absence of a prescription requirement. Nevertheless, the General Court stated that that lack of precision could not make the application for restriction altogether irrelevant. OHIM takes the view that, in the case of a lack of precision, the restriction of the list of goods and services cannot be registered, nor can the comparison of the goods and services be based on that restriction. The Board of Appeal could not have taken the corresponding application into account because that lack of precision was established in this case.
   The General Court also held that the restriction applied for by the then applicant was inadmissible in so far as it was based on the fact that the goods in question were not subject to a prescription requirement. The criterion of the absence of a prescription requirement is, it is submitted, unsuitable for the formation of a sub-group within that of the goods declared. It is not a suitable criterion for the formation of a sub-group of pharmaceutical products claimed by means of a trade mark. In the absence of harmonisation at European level, the question as to whether or not a prescription requirement exists is dependent on the national legal provisions in force for pharmaceutical products, which may be changed at any time by the national legislature. The right to protection by a Community trade mark cannot, however, depend on a criterion which comes under national law or on a criterion which may change over time. That is not contested by OHIM. However, the General Court nevertheless held that the Board of Appeal erred in not taking the restriction into account in its totality. The Board of Appeal could not regard the restriction as altogether irrelevant. It was required to make the comparison of the goods on the basis of the goods covered by the notified trade mark, after the restriction by the then applicant, and of the goods covered by the earlier trade mark, without thereby taking the criterion of the prescription requirement into account.
   In the view of OHIM, the judgment is to that extent based on an infringement of Article 43(1) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(2) of the Regulation implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark, (2) because a lack of precision makes the list of goods and services inadmissible in its entirety. An inadmissible restriction cannot be registered or taken into account when a comparison is made of goods. The judgment also infringes the principle of the binding nature of the application which underlies the Community trade mark system. The list of goods and services must, as such, be assessed in the form applied for by the party seeking registration. OHIM has not been given any powers to reformulate the list.

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

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