title: Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-171/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 13
— in the alternative, declare that, by not informing                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     under the abovementioned provisions,                               paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                        adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                        expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                        laid down in Article 2 of the Directive, expired on
                                                                        1 January 1992 without the Portuguese Republic having
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     brought into force the necessary provisions.
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                    (') OJ No L 373 , 31 . 12 . 1990 , p . 15 .
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                    (2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
laid down in Article 15 of the Directive, expired on 23 July
1993 without the Portuguese Republic having brought
into force the necessary provisions .                                   Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la
0 ) OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .                                          Vallée du Lot and Sàrl Hydro-Réalisations
                                                                                ( Case C-l 72/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/26 )
                                                                        An action against the SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la Vallee du
                                                                        Lot and Sari Hydro-Realisations was brought before the
Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                  1997 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                         ( Case C-171 /97 )                             represented by Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
                                                                        Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, an national civil
                           ( 97/C 199/25 )                              servant on secondment to the Legal Service , acting as
                                                                        Agents, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis and Stephanie Ponsot,
                                                                        lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 Kirchberg.
on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for              that the Court should :
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                   — order the SIVU and Sari Hydro-Realisations to pay to
                                                                              it the sum of ECU 83 928 ( eighty three thousand nine
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   hundred and twenty eight ecus ) together with the
                                                                              interest due thereon from 17 January 1991 , calculated
                                                                              at the rate applied by the EMCF in relation to its
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     transactions in ecus, as published on the first working
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   day of each month, and, in addition, statutory default
      Council Directive 90/676/EEC ( 1 ) of 13 December                       interest from 28 February 1993 ,
      1990 amending Directive 81 /851 /EEC on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States                    — order the SIVU and Sari Hydro-Realisations to pay the
      relating to veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ), the                    costs .
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 90/676/EEC,
                                                                         On 6 December            1990, in the context of Council
— in the alternative, declare that, by not informing the                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 3640/85 of 20 December 1985 on
      Commission      forthwith       of   such   measures,    the      the promotion, by financial support, of demonstration
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           projects and industrial pilot projects in the energy field ( 1 ),
      under the abovementioned provisions,                               the Commission concluded with the SIVU du Pays d'Ac
                                                                         ceuil de la Vallee du Lot and Sari Hydro-Realisations,
                                                                         acting jointly and severally, a contract providing for the
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                       grant of financial support by the Community for the


title: Case T-213/05: Action brought on 26 May 2005 by Jean-Luc Delplancke and Matteo Governatori against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/37

         Action brought on 26 May 2005 by Jean-Luc Delplancke and Matteo Governatori against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-213/05)
   (2005/C 193/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 2005 by Jean-Luc Delplancke, residing in Braine-le-Comte (Belgium), and Matteo Governatori, residing in Saint-Josse-ten-Node (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities to the extent that they set their recruitment grade pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those relied on in Cases T-130/05, T-160/05, T-162/05, T-170/05, T-183/05 and similar to those relied on in Cases T-58/05, T-164/05, T-192/05 and T-201/05.


title: Case C-151/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Scope — Determination of the taxable amount — Concept of ‘subsidy directly linked to the price’  — Payment of a lump sum by the national sickness insurance fund to residential care homes for the elderly)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-151/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Scope - Determination of the taxable amount - Concept of ‘subsidy directly linked to the price’ - Payment of a lump sum by the national sickness insurance fund to residential care homes for the elderly))
   2014/C 151/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Le Rayon d’Or SARL

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d'appel de Versailles — Interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), repeated in Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Scope of VAT — Subsidy directly linked to the cost of providing healthcare — Inclusion of the ‘healthcare lump sum’ paid by the sickness insurance funds to residential care homes for the elderly.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a lump-sum payment such as the ‘healthcare lump sum’ at issue in the main proceedings constitutes the consideration for the healthcare provided for consideration by a residential care home for the elderly to its residents and, on that basis, falls within the scope of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-90/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2015 — Meyer v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Refusal to grant the dependent child allowance — Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Child aged between 18 and 26 years receiving educational or vocational training — Education allowance — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Child attending regularly and full-time an educational establishment — Break in the studies — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2015 — Meyer v Commission
   (Case F-90/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Refusal to grant the dependent child allowance - Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Child aged between 18 and 26 years receiving educational or vocational training - Education allowance - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Child attending regularly and full-time an educational establishment - Break in the studies - Action manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 198/69)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ronald Meyer (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: H.-R. Ilting, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, firstly, to annul the decision not to grant the applicant the dependent child allowance from 1 September 2013 because his child no longer receives ‘educational or vocational training’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, secondly, to order his employer to continue to grant him that allowance and to reimburse him for all medical expenses for his child retroactively from 1 September 2013.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Meyer shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014, p. 39.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 June 1998 in Case C-68/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (National tax on audiovisual and photo-optical products - Internal taxation - Possible incompatibility with Community law)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 258/11
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court,
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               Schleswig-Holstein) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                     the proceedings pending before that Court between
                       of 17 June 1998                               Wilhelm Mecklenburg and Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der
in Case C-68/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Landrat, intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen
the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v                     Interesses, Kiel Ð on the interpretation of Articles 2(a)
                  Ministero delle Finanze (1)                        and 3(2), third indent, of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
                                                                     7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
(National tax on audiovisual and photo-optical products              the environment (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 56) Ð the
Ð Internal taxation Ð Possible incompatibility with                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                       Community law)                                President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.
                        (98/C 258/19)                                Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La
                                                                     Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June
                                                                          1990 on the freedom of access to informationon the
In Case C-68/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                 environment is to be interpreted as covering a
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a                 statement of views given by a countryside protection
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 authority in development consent proceedings if that
Court between Grundig Italiana SpA and Ministero delle                    statement is capable of influencing the outcome of
Finanze Ð on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC                   those proceedings as regards interests pertaining to the
Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                       protection of the environment.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
                                                                     2. The term preliminary investigation proceedings' in the
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                          third indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive is to be
given a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          interpreted as including an administrative procedure
                                                                          such as that referred to in Paragraph 7(1)(2) of the
Article 95 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as                        Umweltinformationsgesetz, which merely prepares the
precluding a Member State from introducing and levying a                  way for an administrative measure, only if it
consumption tax in so far as the taxable amount and the                   immediately precedes a contentious or quasi-
procedure for collecting the tax are different for domestic               contentious procedure and arises from the need to
products and for products imported from other Member                      obtain proof or to investigate a matter prior to the
States.                                                                   opening of the actual procedure.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 17 June 1998                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-321/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   of 17 June 1998
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                in    Case   C-214/97: Commission of the European
Wilhelm Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der Landrat,                            Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)
intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses,
                            Kiel (1)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                     Directive 75/440/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
(Environment Ð Access to information Ð Directive 90/                                       prescribed period)
313/EEC Ð Administrative measure for the protection of
 the environment Ð Preliminary investigation proceedings)                                    (98/C 258/21)
                        (98/C 258/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-321/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-214/97: Commission of the European
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                   Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v


2.8.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 184/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-369/02 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-449/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/70)                                                    (2003/C 184/72)
By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-369/02: Commission of the European               register of Case C-449/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                         (1) OJ C 31 of 08.02.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-7/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/71)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/73)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-440/02: Commission of the European               of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v Italian Republic.                                     register of Case C-7/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                    the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Divi-
                                                                    sion): Société de produits Nestlé SA v Unilever plc.
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case T-206/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Intercon v Commission

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/24

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Intercon v Commission
   (Case T-206/15)
   (2015/C 221/33)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant submits that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the funds which the European Commission paid to the applicant in respect of its participation in the project covered by Agreement VPH2-224635 constitute eligible expenditure in accordance with Article II.14 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement and that the applicant is for that reason not obliged to repay them;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               set aside the implementation of the contested decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action the applicant puts forward one plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of mutual goodwill on the part of contracting parties and infringement of the principle that undertakings must place their trust in the Commission.

               —

               The Commission, the applicant submits, failed to take any account of the observations and documents submitted by the beneficiary by letter of 14 August 2014. In this connection, the Commission invoked Article 22.II.5 of Annex II to the Agreement, under which it is entitled not to take account of statements and evidence submitted out of time. However, in view of the fact that the Commission had itself requested the beneficiary to restate its observations, such a course of action was improper. In that situation, the fact that the new evidence and observations were disregarded in their entirety constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of mutual goodwill on the part of contracting parties and of the principle that undertakings must place their trust in the Commission.


title: Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-310/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 354/ 15
Misapplication of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                  2 . If so , are the provisions applicable in the same way:
Commission misapplied Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty in
finding that the guarantee provided by Niedersachsen was                        ( a ) if the decision in question is the first calculation of
incompatible with the common market. The findings in the                              the insured person's rights under the regulations by
decision with regard to Article 92 ( 1 ) are unlawful in both                         that institution ?
form and substance . The substantive illegality is sufficiently
demonstrated by the application by the Commission of the
fisheries guidelines published in Official Journal of the                       ( b ) if a first decision made before 1 June 1996 did not
European Communities No C 152 of 17 June 1992 , in                                    correctly calculate the rights under the regulations
connection with the investigation of the facts under                                  and has to be cancelled and replaced after 1 June
                                                                                1992 by a rectification decision, the latter thus
Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty, as well as by the absence of a
detailed examination of the individual circumstances when                             being the first to calculate the rights under the
                                                                                regulations correctly ?
determining whether the requirements of fact were met. In
particular, the Commission failed entirely to take into
account the provision of valuable securities when                               ( c ) if a first decision made before 1 June 1992 and
determining the aid element, and to consider alternative                              otherwise correct has to be annulled and replaced
financing, omissions which led to false assumptions . The                             after 1 June 1992 because another institution
argument concerning distortion of competition is not                                  concerned has made a rectification decision ?
supported by any factual finding whatsoever and is,
moreover, contradictory. The decision does not comply                     3 . If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative,
with Article 190 of the EC Treaty and is therefore unlawful                     may the recalculation of the benefit on 1 June 1992 have
as to form as well .
                                                                                the consequence of reducing the benefit due, compared
                                                                                with the amount due on 31 May 1992 on the basis of the
Misapplication of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( e ) of the EC Treaty: the                  provisions applicable until that date, given that
guarantee for Jadekost satisfies the conditions laid down in                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 did not amend or
Article 92 ( 3 ) ( e ) in order for it to be regarded as compatible             supplement the provisions of Articles 118 to 119a of
with the common market . The Commission 's verification of                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 ( 4 ) to make them
the presence of the conditions for application of this                          applicable on 1 June 1992 ?
exception was defective in both form and substance .
                                                                          (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 7 .
                                                                          (-') OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
                                                                          (4 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p. 159 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
5 September 1996 in the case of Salvatore Baldone v. Institut
           National d 'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite
                            Case C-307/96                                 Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                             ( 96/C 354/29 )                                                              Netherlands
                                                                                ( Case C-310/96 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                 ( 96/C 354/30 )
 European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
 Travail de Bruxelles [Brussels Labour Court] of 5 September
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
 23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Salvatore    Baldone        v.   Institut   National    d'Assurance       Communities on 24 September 1996 by the Commission of
 Maladie-Invalidite on the following questions:                           the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber, of
                                                                           the Legal Service , acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal
 1 . Are paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 95a of Regulation                    Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
     ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( ! ), inserted by Regulation ( EEC)
     No 1248/72 ( 2 ), to be interpreted as meaning that if an
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should :
     institution of a Member State after 31 May 1992
     calculates the rights of an invalid under the regulations,
     it must apply, for the period ending on 3 1 May 1992 , the            — declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
     provisions of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Council
     particular Article 46 ) in the codified version of                          Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 by maintaining
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( 3 ), and, from 1 June                      after 1 January 1990 a special provision by virtue of
      1992 , the provisions of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71                     which certain supplies of waste and recuperable material
     as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 ?                               are not required to be subject to value added tax;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23 . 11 . 96
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
    costs .                                                           the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          with Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
— Under Article 1 of Council Directive 89/465/EEC, the                    coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
    Member States are no longer permitted as from                         operating in the water, energy, transport and
     1 January 1990 to exempt supplies of recuperable                     telecommunications sectors ('), the French Republic has
    material and fresh industrial waste pursuant to                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in
    Article 28 ( 3 ) and point 20 of Annex F of the original              particular Article 45 thereof,
    version of the sixth Directive ( 77/388/EEC ). As a result
    of Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC, such supplies are           — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
    now subject to value added tax .                                      inform the Commission of such measures , the French
                                                                          Republic has in any event failed to fulfil its obligations
— Merely making a request pursuant to Article 27 of                       under the said Directive ;
    Directive     77/388/EEC      cannot     detract  from    the
    Commission's power to bring proceedings under                     — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
    Article 169 of the EC Treaty for failure to fulfil
    obligations .                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Moreover, the Commission denies that the procedure in             The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
    question (') has not been concluded . The short                   paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
    time-limits prescribed by Article 27 ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) are          oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
    justified by requirements relating to legal certainty.            adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of
    Undertakings and Member States should be made                     such directives within the time-limit prescribed therein . The
    certain as quickly as possible about any national                 time-limit laid down in Article 45 of Directive 93/38/EEC
    measure constituting a derogation from the common                 expired on 1 July 1994 but the French Republic has not
    system of value added tax . The Netherlands                       adopted the necessary measures .
    Government itself has not taken any steps to eliminate
    the present unlawful state of affairs . In particular, it has     (') OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 84 .
    failed to place the matter on the Council 's agenda . Since
    the Council has not adopted a positive decision after the
    expiry of a reasonable time, the procedure initiated by
    the Netherlands Government under Article 27 must be
    regarded as closed . That Government's position that the
    procedure initiated in 1990 is still pending in mid-1995
                                                                      Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
    is also unconvincing given that the solution 'put
                                                                      of the European Communities against the French
    forward ' in 1990 was to be valid for only three years
                                                                                Republic
    according to the wording of the request.
                                                                                ( Case C-312/96 )
(') Letter of 24 August 1990 from the Commission to the other                                    ( 96/C 354/32 )
    Member States and the communication to the Council of
    22 October 1990 [ SEC(90 ) 2031 final ].                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
                                                                      Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                             Republic                                 the Court should :
                        ( Case C-311 /96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/31 )                             — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
An action against the French Republic was brought before                  coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       contracts ( ^ the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                       obligations under that Directive, in particular Article 34
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                       thereof;
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 inform the Commission of such measures, the French


title: Case T-293/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/9

         Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission
   (Case T-293/09)
   2009/C 244/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre National Interprofessionnel de l'Économie Laitière (CNIEL) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Cabanes and V. Kostrzewski-Pugnat, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 10 December 2008 in Case N 561/2008 — France (Actions by interprofessional organisations);

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to institute the formal procedure to review the aid laid down in Article 88(2) EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.
   In support of its action, the applicant advances three pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 87(1) EC, since CVLs do not constitute State resources and since the measures adopted cannot be attributed to the State and do not give rise to any advantage for the final beneficiaries;

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission has not indicated its reasons for finding that the CVLs constitute State resources or how trade between Member States is affected or competition distorted;

               —

               breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission failed to institute the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC despite the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the nature of the framework system at issue.

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-476/98: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
C 323/8                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            not rescinding those provisions of the said previously-
                                                                                concluded agreements which are incompatible with the
                                                                                EC Treaty, especially Article 52 thereof, and with second-
                       of 5 November 2002
                                                                                ary law, or by failing to take all legally possible steps to
                                                                                that end, failed, in relation to the agreements concluded
in Case C-476/98: Commission of the European Communi-                             before the EC Treaty entered into force, to comply with
            ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)                                its obligations under Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Article 307 EC) and, in relation to the
                                                                                agreements concluded after the entry into force of the
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            Treaty, with its obligations under secondary law,
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport                  the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       Chamber, acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty                      and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
                       (now Article 10 EC))                                 General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-
                                                                            Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 Novem-
                                                                            ber 2002, in which it:
                          (2002/C 323/08)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           1.    Declares that, by entering into international commitments with
                                                                                the United States of America
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                 —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
                                                                                nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
                                                                                munity routes,
In Case C-476/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Sack and F. Benyon) v Federal Republic of Germany                     —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
(Agent: C.-D. Quassowski, assisted by G. Schohe), supported                             use or used in German territory, and
by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. A. Fierstra and
J. van Bakel): Application for:
                                                                                —     recognising the United States of America as having the
                                                                                right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having
                                                                                where air carriers designated by the Federal Republic of
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded, in                             Germany are not owned by the latter or by German
      1994 and 1996, ‘open skies’ agreements with the United                            nationals,
      States of America in the field of air transport, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now                      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      Article 10 EC) and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43                     obligations under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
      EC) thereof, and also under secondary law adopted                           EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      pursuant to that Treaty, and in particular Council Regu-                    Article 43 EC) and under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/
      lation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of                     92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services and
      air carriers (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a
      (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for                              code of conduct for computerised reservation systems, as
      Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes                        amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/                    29 October 1993;
      92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (OJ
      1992 L 240, p. 15), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/
      89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      reservation systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended
      by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October
                                                                            3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
      1993 (OJ 1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation
      (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules
      for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ                 4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
      1993 L 14, p. 1); and,
—     in the alternative, in relation to part of its principal claim,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
      a declaration that, in so far as the 1994 and 1996
      agreements cannot be regarded as having radically
      amended and thus replaced the agreements previously
      concluded, the Federal Republic of Germany has, by


title: Case C-205/10 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2010 by Heinz Helmuth Eriksen against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2010 in Case T-516/08: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen v European Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/6

         Appeal brought on 30 April 2010 by Heinz Helmuth Eriksen against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2010 in Case T-516/08: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen v European Commission
   (Case C-205/10 P)
   2010/C 195/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (represented by: I. Anderson, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety the General Court's decision and order of March 24th 2010 dismissing Appellant's Application as manifestly inadmissible with costs.

               —

               Retain jurisdiction over Appellant's Appeal and order the Commission to pay Appellant;

                           (a)

                           the sum of EUR 800,000 or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable for past, present and future pain and suffering and diminution of enjoyment of life, from serious injury to his health as a result of the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce implementation of Directive 96/29’s (1) provisions for precautionary medical monitoring for radiation illnesses in the case of the Thule special intervention teams.

                           (b)

                           Payment to Appellant or his medical treating facilities or his care givers, of the future costs of medical treatments and medications to alleviate and or treat his impaired health, referred to in Para. a) above, which are not available to him through the socialized medical system of his member state.

                           (c)

                           Reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by Appellant in the General Court and in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in dismissing Appellant's non- contractual liability case as inadmissible by distorting both the nature of his claims and his pleas in law. As a result of such distortion, the Court failed to consider unlawfulness in the context of the Commission's capricious and disingenuous pretexts for refusing to act — which inaction eviscerated the Uniform Health Safety Standards for the protections of workers and the public in cases of radiological accidents caused by the military use of nuclear energy.

               2.

               Failure to Apply Legal Principles Common to Member States The Court failed to assess the unlawfulness of the Commission's lack of care, diligence and sound administration with reference to legal principles common to member state systems for determining administrative accountability for damage caused to individuals, as required under Article 188 of the EAEC Treaty.

               3.

               Inappropriate Application of Commission's Unique Competition Law Exemption- Powers To Admissibility of Health Standards Complaint The Court further erred by considering the Commission's military exemption of the radiological accident at Thule from the Directive's health protections, in the light of the Commission's wide and unique discretion to formulate EU competition policy by discretionary exemptions of unlawful trade agreements. This ignored admissibility decisions of this Court in other EU areas where the Commission does not possess such a unique discretion and where allegations of the Commission's failure to act did not deem a claim manifestly inadmissible.
               The Court overlooked the fact that Commission does not have a unique and unfettered discretion to enforce the Uniform Health Safety Standards since the EAEC Treaty narrowly defines its exemption- power and specifically provides mechanisms for individuals to complain of its administrative failures to act in areas where protections have been conferred on them. This includes situations where the refusal to act has been addressed to another party.

               4.

               Failure to Consider Whether Commission's Refusal to Act Violated EAEC Treaty's Designated Object of Protecting the Health of Workers and the Public.
               The Court also erred by failing to enquire into whether the Commission's refusal to act violated the EAEC Treaty's objectives of establishing and ensuring the application of Uniform Health Safety Standards to protect workers and the public from the long term effects of ionizing radiation. In doing so it overlooked the Commission's peremptory duty under the EAEC Treaty to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty are properly applied, including its embodied precautionary principle.

      (1)  Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation
   OJ L 159, p. 1


title: Case T-340/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Stradivarius España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Stradivari 1715 — Earlier Community figurative Stradivarius trade marks — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/49

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Stradivarius España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715)
   (Case T-340/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Stradivari 1715 - Earlier Community figurative Stradivarius trade marks - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/85)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Stradivarius España (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and A. Sempio, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cristina Ricci (Reggello, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti, M. Boretto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1024/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Stradivarius España, SA and Cristina Ricci.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Stradivarius España, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-77/10: Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning Enterprise (L112)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/53

         Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning Enterprise (L112)
   (Case T-77/10)
   2010/C 113/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Certmedica International GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pfortner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lehning Enterprise SARL (Sainte Barbe, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2), notified on 21 December 2009, inasmuch as it declares invalid the Community trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) in relation to the goods “Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations; medicinal products for internal use; food supplements for medical purposes” in Class 5;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2), notified on 21 December 2009, inasmuch as it declares invalid the Community trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) in relation to the goods “Medicinal products for internal use; food supplements for medical purposes” in Class 5;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2), notified on 21 December 2009, inasmuch as it declares invalid the Community trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) in relation to the goods “Medicinal products for internal use” in Class 5;

               —

               reject in full the application, based on the French trade mark “L.114” (F 1 312 700), for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) and permit registration of Community trade mark “L112” for the following goods:

                  “Class 5: Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; medicinal products for internal use; food supplements for medical purposes; dietetic foodstuffs concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)
                  Class 29: Foodstuff concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)”;

               in the alternative reject the application, based on the French trade mark “L.114” (F 1 312 700), for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) inasmuch as it seeks a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark “L112” in Class 5 for the goods “Medicinal products for internal use; food supplements for medical purposes” and permit registration of Community trade mark “L112” for the following goods:

                  “Class 5: Sanitary preparations; medicinal products for internal use; food supplements for medical purposes; dietetic foodstuffs concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)
                  Class 29: Foodstuff concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)”;

               in the further alternative, reject the application, based on the French trade mark “L.114” (F 1 312 700), for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) inasmuch as it seeks a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark “L112” in Class 5 for the goods “Medicinal products for internal use” and permit registration of Community trade mark “L112” for the following goods:

                  “Class 5: Sanitary preparations; medicinal products for internal use; dietetic foodstuffs concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)
                  Class 29: Foodstuff concentrates with a shellfish base (including chitosan)”;

               —

               Order Lehning Enterprise SARL to pay all costs arising for the applicant out of the invalidity proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
               in the alternative, order the applicant to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings only to the extent that that the trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) was declared invalid for the goods “Pharmaceutical preparations” (20 %);
               in the further alternative, order the applicant to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings only to the extent that that the trade mark “L112” (EU 002349728) was declared invalid for the goods “Pharmaceutical preparations; food supplements for medicinal purposes” (30 %);

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the Community word mark No 2 349 728 for goods in Classes 5 and 29

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Lehning Enterprise SARL

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the French word mark “L.114” (trade mark No 1 312 700), although the application concerned only certain goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: application for a declaration of invalidity upheld and the Community trade mark concerned declared partially invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: applicant’s appeal partially upheld
   Pleas in law:

               —

               No proof of use of the French trade mark “L.114” by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity;

               —

               No similarity of goods in Class 5;

               —

               Error of law by the Board of Appeal in assessing the similarity of the signs


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination — Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market — Partial referral to national authorities)

text:
6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/33
L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,               1.     dismissed the application;
against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and
G. Knudsen) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 refusing to consider that                2.     ordered each party to bear its own costs.
the applicant’s place of residence is in Nice and apply the
weighting for France to her retirement pension from 1 January
2000 and, second, of the decision of the Parliament of                     (1 ) OJ No C 144 of 15.6.2002.
6 December 2001 expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint
— the Court of First Instance (single judge: A.W.H. Meij);
I. Natsinas, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003 in
which it:
1.     Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 in so
       far as it applies to the applicant’s pension the weighting
       applicable to Luxembourg for the whole of the year 2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
( 1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.
                                                                           in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Com-
                                                                           mitments in the course of the first phase of examination —
                                                                           Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market
                                                                                — Partial referral to national authorities)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 213/65)
                         of 19 June 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt v European Central
                               Bank (1)
(Officials — Employee of the European Central Bank —                       In Case T-119/02, Royal Philips Electronics NV, established at
                        Written reprimand)                                 Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk
                                                                           and N.G. Cronstedt, lawyers, supported by De –Longhi SpA,
                                                                           established in Treviso (Italy), represented by M. Merola,
                         (2003/C 213/64)                                   I. van Schendel, G. Crichlow and D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, v
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Superti,
                                                                           K. Wiedner and J.E. Flynn), supported by SEB SA, established in
                    (Language of the case: German)                         Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot and S. Hautbourg,
                                                                           lawyers, and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
                                                                           and F. Million): Application for annulment of, first, the
                                                                           Commission’s decision SG(2002) D/228078 of 8 January
                                                                           2002, based on Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Regulation
In Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt, member of staff of                  No 4064/89 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European
the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am Main                   Economic Area, not to oppose the concentration between SEB
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer, against the                  and Moulinex and to declare it compatible with the common
European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and T. Gilliams,                 market and with the Agreement on the European Economic
assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application for annul-                 Area, subject to compliance with the proposed commitments
ment of the decision of 1 March 2002, taken by Mr Noyer,                   (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex) and, second, the
Vice President of the European Central Bank, to issue a written            Commission’s decision C(2002)38, of 8 January 2002, adopted
reprimand to the applicant — the Court of First Instance                   on the basis of Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89,
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi              referring part of the examination of that concentration to the
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a                 French authorities, the Court of First Instance(Third Chamber),
judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it:                                     composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/34               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a         inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 302),
judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it:                                     concerning the revised version of the Trans-Atlantic Confer-
                                                                           ence Agreement (TACA), the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           4 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Commission and SEB;
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
3.    Orders De’Longhi to bear its own costs;
                                                                           2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 4 June 2003                                                             of 13 May 2003
in Case T-224/99: The European Council of Transport                        in Case T-97/01 DEP, Christos Gogos v Commission of
Users ASBL and Others v Commission of the European                                           the European Communities (1)
                         Communities (1)
                                                                                (Taxation of recoverable costs)
(Actions for annulment — Action become devoid of purpose
                     — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/67)
                         (2003/C 213/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-97/01 DEP, Christos Gogos, an official of the
In Case T-224/99, The European Council of Transport Users                  Commission of the European Communities, represented by
ASBL, established in Brussels, The Freight Transport Associ-               C. Tagaras, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communi-
ation, established in Tunbridge Wells (United Kingdom),                    ties (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and J. Currall) — application
Association des Utilisateurs de Transport de Fret (AUTF),                  for taxation of costs to be paid by the defendant to the
established in Paris, and Industrieförbundet, established in               applicant following the order of the Court of First Instance of
Stockholm, represented by M. Clough QC, with an address for                21 October 2002 in Case T-97/01 Gogos v Commission (not
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                        published in the Reports of Cases) — the Court of First
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), supported by Atlantic Container              Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
Line AB, established in Göteborg (Sweden), Hapag-Lloyd AG,                 President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
established in Hamburg (Germany), Mediterranean Shipping                   made an order on 13 May 2003 the operative part of which is
Company SA, established in Geneva (Switzerland), A.P. Møller-              as follows:
Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen, Nippon Yusen Kaisha,
established in Tokyo (Japan), Orient Overseas Container Line
(UK) Ltd, established in London and P & O Nedlloyd Container               The total amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case T-97/
Line Ltd, established in London, represented by J. Pheasant and            01 is fixed at EUR 11 000
M. Levitt, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg:
Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission,
communicated to the applicants by letter of 6 August 1999,                 (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.01.
not to raise serious doubts, within the meaning of Article 12
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 of 19 July 1968
applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2003 in Case T-321/01: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Development cooperation — Community co-financing of projects by NGOs — Ineligibility of an NGO — Rejection of co-financing applications)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/43
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH,
                                                                         established in Langen (Germany), represented by K. Landry
                     of 17 September 2003                                and L. Harings, lawyers, v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer, R. Tricot, X. Lewis and
in Case T-137/01: Stadtsportverband Neuss eV v Com-                      M. Núñez-Müller): Application for, first, partial annulment of
          mission of the European Communities (1)                        Commission Decision C (2001) 2533 of 14 August 2001
                                                                         (REC 4/00), finding it appropriate to effect post-clearance
(Action for annulment — Eurathlon Programme — Com-                       recovery of import duties not charged to Peter Biegi Nahrungs-
munity financial assistance — Partial repayment — Obli-                  mittel GmbH in respect of the importation of poultry meat
gation to state reasons — Method of calculation — Limi-                  from Thailand during the period from 13 to 18 July 1995 and
            tation period — Ineligible expenditure)                      from 4 to 22 September 1995 (Case T-309/01), and, second,
                                                                         annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 857 of 5 March
                         (2003/C 275/69)                                 2002 (REC 4/01), finding it appropriate to effect post-clearance
                                                                         recovery of import duties not charged to Commonfood
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH in respect of the
                                                                         importation of poultry meat from Thailand on 24 July 1995
                                                                         (Case T-239/02), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
In Case T-137/01, Stadtsportverband Neuss eV, established in             composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Neuss (Germany), represented by H.G. Hüsch and S. Schnelle,              Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                a judgment on 17 September 2003, in which it:
J. Sack): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision of 9 April 2001 ordering partial repayment of                   1.    Dismisses the applications.
financial assistance granted to the applicant under the Eur-
athlon programme, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Cham-
                                                                         2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
ber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2003, in                 (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002 and C 247 of 12.10.2002.
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                         in Case T-321/01: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                     of 17 September 2003
in Joined Cases T-309/01 and T-239/02: Peter Biegi Nah-                  (Development cooperation — Community co-financing of
rungsmittel GmbH and Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft                      projects by NGOs — Ineligibility of an NGO — Rejection
für Agrar-Produkte mbH v Commission of the European                                        of co-financing applications)
                         Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/71)
(Subsequent accounting for import duties — Conditions
— Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2193/92 —
Detectable error — Duty of care — Regulation (EC) No                                        (Language of the case: French)
 774/94 — Combined nomenclature — WTO tariff quotas)
                         (2003/C 275/70)
                                                                         In Case T-321/01, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J.
                                                                         Jonczy and S. Fries): Application for annulment of the
In Joined Cases T-309/01 and T-239/02, Peter Biegi Nahrungs-             Commission’s decision of 16 October 2001 refusing appli-
mittel GmbH, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),                 cations for the co-financing of two projects submitted by the
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
applicant in December 1996 and September 1997, the Court                    1.     Dismisses the application.
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September
2003, in which it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2001
      refusing the applications for co-financing made by the applicant
      in December 1996 and September 1997.
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant in
      addition to its own costs.
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-76/02: Mara Messina v Commission of the
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      European Communities (1)
                       of 17 September 2003                                 (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to documents —
                                                                            Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member
                                                                                State without the prior agreement of that State)
in Case T-71/02: Classen Holding KG v Office for Harmon-
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)                                                               (2003/C 275/73)
(Community trade mark — Admissibility of appeal before
the Board of Appeal — Formal requirements — Filing of a                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Time-
limit for applying for restitutio in integrum — Articles 59
                 and 78 of Regulation No 40/94)
                                                                            In Case T-76/02, Mara Messina, residing at Naples (Italy),
                          (2003/C 275/72)                                   represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, V. Di Bucci and
                                                                            P. Aalto): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents
                                                                            relating to the State aid scheme which was the subject of the
                                                                            Commission’s Decision of 2 August 2000 (State Aid N 715/
                                                                            99 — Italy (SG 2000 D/10574), the Court of First Instance
In Case T-71/02, Classen Holding KG, established in Essen                   (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tii-
(Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer,                li, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for                     ras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2003, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the intervener before                 which it:
the Court of First Instance being International Paper Co.,
established in New York, New York (United States of America),
represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer: Action brought                   1.     Dismisses the action.
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 14 December 2001 (Case R 810/1999-2)                        2.     Orders the applicant to bear half her own costs. Orders the
declaring inadmissible, following rejection of the application                     Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
for restitutio in integrum, the appeal brought against the                         applicant’s costs.
decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings
between Classen Holding KG and International Paper Co., the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,            (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 September 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-164/16: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES) (EU trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark THE TRAVEL EPISODES — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for alteration — Act not amenable to adoption by the Board of Appeal — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/23

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)
   (Case T-164/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for figurative EU trade mark THE TRAVEL EPISODES - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for alteration - Act not amenable to adoption by the Board of Appeal - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 231/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Piper Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Oster, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 1099/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE TRAVEL EPISODES as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Piper Verlag GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-159/10 and C-160/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Gerhard Fuchs (C-159/10), Peter Köhler (C-160/10) v Land Hessen (Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Compulsory retirement of prosecutors on reaching the age of 65 — Legitimate aims justifying a difference of treatment on grounds of age — Coherence of the legislation)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Gerhard Fuchs (C-159/10), Peter Köhler (C-160/10) v Land Hessen
   (Joined Cases C-159/10 and C-160/10) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Compulsory retirement of prosecutors on reaching the age of 65 - Legitimate aims justifying a difference of treatment on grounds of age - Coherence of the legislation)
   2011/C 269/21
   Language of the cases: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gerhard Fuchs (C-159/10), Peter Köhler (C-160/10)

      Defendant: Land Hessen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National rules providing for automatic retirement of civil servants at 65 — Legitimate objectives justifying differences of treatment on grounds of age

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation does not preclude a law, such as the Law on the civil service of the Land Hessen (Hessisches Beamtengesetz), as amended by the Law of 14 December 2009, which provides for the compulsory retirement of permanent civil servants — in this instance prosecutors — at the age of 65, while allowing them to continue to work, if it is in the interests of the service that they should do so, until the maximum age of 68, provided that that law has the aim of establishing a balanced age structure in order to encourage the recruitment and promotion of young people, to improve personnel management and thereby to prevent possible disputes concerning employees’ fitness to work beyond a certain age, and that it allows that aim to be achieved by appropriate and necessary means.

               2.

               In order for it to be demonstrated that the measure concerned is appropriate and necessary, the measure must not appear unreasonable in the light of the aim pursued and must be supported by evidence the probative value of which it is for the national court to assess.

               3.

               A law such as the Law on the civil service of the Land Hessen, as amended by the Law of 14 December 2009, which provides for the compulsory retirement of prosecutors when they reach the age of 65, does not lack coherence merely because it allows them to work until the age of 68 in certain cases or also contains provisions intended to restrict retirement before the age of 65, and other legislation of the Member State concerned provides for certain — particularly elected — civil servants to remain in post beyond that age and also the gradual raising of the retirement age from 65 to 67 years.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2003 in Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Exercise of activities as staff representative and union activities — Action for annulment)

text:
C 35/8                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.2.2004
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Chemin the sum of                    (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
            EUR 29 592 (twenty-nine thousand five hundred and                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
            ninety-two) as compensation for the material damage and          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
            the sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-              and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for the annulment of
            material damage suffered;                                        the decision adopting the definitive staff report of the applicant
                                                                             for the period running from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 —
      —     the Commission shall pay Miss Copes the sum of EUR 1             the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage                V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsin-
            suffered;                                                        as, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                             5 November 2003, in which it:
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Mondini the sum of
            EUR 5 000 (five thousand) as compensation for the
            material damage and the sum of EUR 1 (one) as                    1.    Dismisses the application.
            compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Miss Preissler the sum of               2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
            EUR 11 929 (eleven thousand nine hundred and twenty-
            nine) as compensation for the material damage and the
            sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-                  (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.02
            material damage suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Mrs Bertolo the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage
            suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Brovelli the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage
            suffered;                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      —     the Commission shall pay Mrs D’Elia the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage                                      of 18 November 2003
            suffered.
4)    The remainder of the action in Case T-115/01 is dismissed.             in Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
5)    The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs
      incurred by the applicants in Case T-331/00.
                                                                             (Officials — Temporary staff — Installation allowance —
6)    The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay three-quarters              Change in place of employment — Default interest)
      of the costs incurred by the applicants in Case T-115/01.
7)    The applicants in Case T-115/01 shall bear a quarter of their                                     (2004/C 35/12)
      own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00 and OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.
                                                                             In Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, a member of the
                                                                             temporary staff of the European Parliament, residing in Berlin-
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Wittenau (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
                                                                             against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and
                        of 5 November 2003                                   U. Rösslein) — application for, first, annulment of the decision
                                                                             of the European Parliament of 17 April 2001, refusing to grant
in Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the                        the applicant an installation allowance in connection with the
                    European Communities (1)                                 change in his place of employment and, second, an order that
                                                                             the European Parliament pay to the applicant an installation
(Officials — Staff report — Exercise of activities as staff                  allowance amounting to two months’ basic salary, together
representative and union activities — Action for annulment)                  with interest at 8 % from the date of the application — the
                                                                             Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-
                           (2004/C 35/11)                                    Valdecasas, President, J.D. Cooke and P. Lindh, Judges; I. Natsi-
                                                                             nas, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                     (Language of the case: French)                          18 November 2003, in which it:
In Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef, official of the Commission                1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 17 April 2001
of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg                             refusing to grant the applicant an installation allowance;