title: Case C-234/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel by judgment of that court of 25 May 2005 in 1. The Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Social Affairs, 2. The Belgian State, represented by the State Secretary for Public Health v BVBA De Backer

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel by judgment of that court of 25 May 2005 in 1. The Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Social Affairs, 2. The Belgian State, represented by the State Secretary for Public Health v BVBA De Backer
   (Case C-234/05)
   (2005/C 205/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Brussels Court of Appeal) (Belgium) of 25 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. The Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Social Affairs 2. The Belgian State, represented by the State Secretary for Public Health, and B.V.B.A. De Backer on the following question:
   Is the Law of 14 July 1994 on financing for veterinary inspections compatible with Community law? Must the veterinary charges provided for in that national law be regarded as constituting both an impermissible restriction on intra-Community trade and an unlawful charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty and/or as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, and consequently be regarded as an aid measure which ought to have been notified to the Commission?


title: Action brought on 10 May 1995 by Società Cementerie del Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-116/95)

text:
No C 208/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
    22 July 1993 and 3 August 1994 ( or, in the case of three       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    of the applicants, 29 June 1994 ) interest amounting to
    8 % of the amount of compensation paid to them in
    addition to 8 % thereon from delivery of the                    In connection with its investigation of European cement
    judgment,                                                       producers ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), the
                                                                    Commission asked Cementir to produce figures for its
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings           invoicing of grey cement and clinker for 1992 and 1993 . In
    and in particular the lawyers' costs .                          compliance with that request, Cementir communicated to
                                                                    the Commission figures which erroneously included
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 amounts relating to supplies of goods and services that were
                                                                    completely different from sales of grey cement and clinker.
                                                                    Cementir became aware of the error only on examining the
The applicant producers, who accepted the compensation              Decision which concluded that investigation ( Commission
offered to them by the competent German authority within            Decision No 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 ), whereupon
the two-month period under Article 14 of Council                    it informed the Commission that the invoicing figures
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 providing for an offer of             previously supplied were too high by reason of an
compensation to certain producers of milk and milk                  accounting error . At the same time, the company attached
products temporarily prevented from carrying on their               an accountants' certificate identifying and quantifying the
trade, are claiming compensation for the damage suffered by         amounts erroneously added to the cement invoices and
them on the ground that the interest on delayed payment             determining the exact invoicing figure which the
provided for in Article 12 of that Regulation in the amount         Commission should have used in calculating the fine
of 8 % of the amount of compensation was not paid for the           imposed on Cementir .
whole of the period in respect of which they were entitled .
The Commission substantiated its refusal to pay the interest
claimed by the fact that the applicants were too late in
withdrawing their proceedings for compensation brought              By letter from the Director-General for Competition of
before the Court in 1990 .                                          2 March 1995 , the Commission rejected that request for
                                                                    rectification . That decision of rejection        forms the
The applicants take the view that the payment of the interest       subject-matter of the present action .
at issue cannot depend on the date of withdrawal of
proceedings, which is merely a formal step, since no such
condition is contained in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 .           Cementir argues that the decision should be annulled for the
                                                                    following reasons :
                                                                    — In its decision, the Commission took into consideration,
                                                                        for the calculation of the fine imposed on Cementir,
                                                                        invoicing which was erroneous because it included
Action brought on 10 May 1995 by Societa Cementerie del                 amounts that had nothing to do with sales of grey
Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European                      cement and clinker, the subject-matter of the dispute .
                         Communities                                    The Commission 's assertions in its letter of 2 March
                      ( Case T-l 16/95 )                                1995 , implicitly acknowledging the error in calculation
                                                                        but attempting to dispute its relevance for the purposes
                        ( 95/C 208/64 )                                 of determining the fine and thus for the request for
                                                                        rectification, appear to be unfounded and irrelevant.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    — The Commission 's refusal to amend the amount of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        fine on the basis of the corrected invoicing figures,
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                      which, moreover, the Commission has not disputed,
Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 1995 by                  seriously penalizes Cementir without justification. In the
 Societa Cementerie del Tirreno SpA ('Cementir'), having its            event, the fine has been calculated on the basis of
registered office in Rome, represented by Gian Michele                  erroneous figures and is thus disproportionate; it has
 Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, both of the Naples Bar, with              also been calculated on        a different    and    more
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                unfavourable basis than         that used      for   other
 Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l cr.                                      undertakings which merely communicated the figures
                                                                        for grey cement sales, thereby breaching the principle of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            equality of treatment.
— annul the decision of rejection contained in the
     Commission's letter of 2 March 1995 , and
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-449/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Trends (Arbitration clause — Second Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration — Contracts involving projects in the field of road transport informatics and telecommunications — Lack of supporting documents for part of the declared expenses — Termination of contracts — Expired contracts)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Trends
   (Case T-449/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Second Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration - Contracts involving projects in the field of road transport informatics and telecommunications - Lack of supporting documents for part of the declared expenses - Termination of contracts - Expired contracts)
   (2007/C 247/45)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent, and by K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and V. Vlassi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Trends reimburse the Commission in the sum of EUR 195 435 plus contractual interest or, in the alternative, plus default interest.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               The interlocutory application is dismissed;

               3.

               The Commission is ordered to pay the costs except for those arising from the interlocutory application;

               4.

               Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) is ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003 (formerly Case C-249/03).


title: Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-277/97)

text:
6 . 9 . 97               lEN ]                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 271 /13
( iii ) The starting date of 28 May 1992 for which the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
         Defendants contend is neither that laid down in the             van Beroep by order of that court of 10 July 1997 in the
         loan agreement nor that purportedly suggested by the            case of Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. ( 1 ) C.J.
         Commission in its letter of 23 January 1995 . The                                  Voeten and ( 2 ) J. Beckers
         notion that the assessment period commenced on                                           (Case C-279/97)
         28 May 1992 thus has no basis in law.
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /22 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by the Centrale Raad van Beroep
                                                                         ( Court of last instance in social security matters) by order
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the                  of that court of 10 July 1997 in the case of Landelijk
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                   Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. ( 1 ) C.J. Voeten and (2 ) J.
                            ( Case C-277/97)                             Beckers on the following questions:
                              ( 97/C 271/21 )                            1 . Does Article 51 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 547/72 ( ] )
                                                                              preclude the competent institution from carrying out
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                          in the country of the competent institution a medical
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                       examination on a person in receipt of benefit for
on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European                             incapacity for work as part of checking the employee's
Communities, represented by Lena Strom and Gotz zur                           degree of incapacity in the absence of a prior medical
Hausen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                      examination carried out by the institution of the place
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                          of stay or residence, where the employee is a frontier
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     worker and, as a result, it can be taken that the
                                                                              distance between his place of residence and the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   competent institution is not necessarily greater than
                                                                              the distance between his place of residence and the
 1 . declare that, by failing to implement within the                         institution of the place of residence ?
        prescribed period all measures necessary to comply
                                                                         2.   In the case of determination for the first time of
        with Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February
        1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of                   entitlement to benefit, does Article 40 of Regulation
        radioactive waste between Member States and into                      ( EEC ) No 574/72 preclude the competent institution
        and out of the Community ('), the Kingdom of                          from assessing the incapacity for work on the basis of
        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                its own medical examination, without a prior medical
        EAEC Treaty;                                                          examination by the institution of the place of
                                                                              residence ?
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the negative: does that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           also apply where the competent institution has not
                                                                              requested and hence not taken account of medical
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                      documents and reports and also information from the
in Case C-220/97 (2 ).                                                        institution of the place of residence, but only apprised
                                                                              itself of medical information from the attending
H OJ L 35 , 12 . 2 . 1992, p . 24 .                                           practitioner in the country where the employee is
( 2 ) OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 15 .                                       undergoing medical treatment ?
                                                                         (') OJ, English Special Edition, 1972 ( I ), p. 160 .


title: Case T-167/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Établissements Toulorge v Parliament and Council (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals — Actual damage)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Établissements Toulorge v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-167/02) (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals - Actual damage)
   (2006/C 224/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Établissements Toulorge (Bricquebec, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera and E. Waldherr) and Council of the European Union (represented by: initially I. Díez Parra and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently I. Díez Parra and Z. Kupčová, Agents)

      Intervening parties supporting the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay its own costs and those of the Parliament and the Council.

               3.

               The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2002.


title: Case T-164/12: Order of the General Court of 4 December 2014  — Alstom v Commission (Competition — Action for damages brought before a national court — Request for cooperation — Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Decision of the Commission to transmit information to a national court — Withdrawal of the request — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/17

         Order of the General Court of 4 December 2014 — Alstom v Commission
   (Case T-164/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Action for damages brought before a national court - Request for cooperation - Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Decision of the Commission to transmit information to a national court - Withdrawal of the request - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 056/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented: initially by J. Derenne, lawyer, N. Heaton, P. Chaplin and M. Farley, Solicitors, and subsequently by J Derenne, N Heaton and P Chaplin)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Magnus, C. Bryant, E. Coulson, Solicitors, J. Turner QC, D. Beard QC and L. John, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision, communicated to the applicant by letter of 26 January 2012 of the Director General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition under reference D/2012/006840, to accede to the request for cooperation from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, in so far as it involves the disclosure of information allegedly covered by the obligation of professional secrecy in the applicant’s reply to the statement of objections in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2)

               The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Action brought on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-191/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208/ 15
Action brought on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the                    References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                       d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
                                  Germany                                  20 December 1994 , in the cases of Societe Comateb and
                                                                           Others v. Directeur General des Douanes et Droits
                             ( Case C-191 /95 )
                                                                                Indirects
                               ( 95/C 208/29 )
                                                                                ( Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/30 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the                       European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
European Communities, represented by Jiirgen Grunwald ,                    d'Instance ( District Court ), Paris VII, of 20 December 1994,
of the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for                     which were received at the Court Registry on 1 9 June 1 995 ,
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                  for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Société Comateb,
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            Société Panigua, Société Edouard et Fils , Société de
                                                                           Distribution de Vins et Liqueurs , Société Etablissements
                                                                           André Haan, Société Diffusion Générale de Quincaillerie,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Société Diffusion Générale, Société Cama Renault, Société
                                                                           SCP Ovide et Dorville , Société Ducros Guadeloupe , Société
                                                                           Comptoir Commercial Caraïbes, Société Giafa , Société
1 . declare that, by not providing for appropriate penalties               LVS, Société Catherine et Jean-Claude Tabar Nouval ,
      in cases where companies limited by shares fail to
                                                                           Société L'Heure et L'Or, Société Général Bazar Bricolage,
      disclose their annual accounts, the Federal Republic of              Société Grain d'Or, Société Cash Service, Etablissements
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            Efira, Société Farandole, Société Carat, Société Rio, Société
      Treaty and under First Council Directive 68/ 15 1 /EEC of            Guadeloupéenne de Distribution Moderne, Société
      9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for                Martinique        Automobiles ,      Société     Socovi   Sàrl ,
      the protection of the interests of members and others,               Etablissements Gabriel Vangout et Cie , Sàrl and Société
      are required by Member States of companies within the                Simat Guadeloupe Sàrl v . Directeur Général des Douanes et
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the                 Droits Indirects, on the following question:
      Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
      equivalent throughout the Community (') and Fourth
      Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on                does the fact that a Member State objects to the repayment
      Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g ) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of       of a charge, levied in breach of Community law, on the
      certain types of companies ( 2 );                                    ground that it has been passed on to the purchaser make it
                                                                           virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain
                                                                           reimbursement, where the undertaking concerned is
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                       required by the law of that Member State to incorporate the
      costs .                                                              charge in the cost price of the goods sold ?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Effective implementation of the above Directives requires
that appropriate penalties be provided for within the                      Appeal by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo,
meaning of Article 6 of Directive 68/151 /EEC . The Federal                Udine, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Republic of Germany has so far failed to do so . Although                  6 April 1995 in Case T-143/89 , Ferriere Nord Spa v.
Paragraph 335 ( 6 ) of the Handelsgesetzbuch ( Commercial                          Commission of the European Communities
Code ) provides for a penalty payment, the Registergericht
( Registration Court) does not take any action unless a                                          ( Case C-219/95 P)
member, a creditor or the works council of the company                                               ( 95/C 208/31 )
requests it to do so .
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 April 1 995 by
Because of the lack of legal sanctions and a widespread open               the Court of First Instance in Case T-143 / 89 between
disregard in Germany of Community law disclosure                           Ferriere Nord SpA and the Commission was brought before
requirements, disclosure of company results in that country                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
is abnormally low.                                                         14 June 1995 by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo,
                                                                           Udine, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona , with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .                      Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
( 2 ) OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p . 11 .
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance ,


title: Case C-93/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 — Article 11 — Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction — Prior determination whether an intellectual property right has been infringed — Administrative penalty)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-93/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Article 11 - Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction - Prior determination whether an intellectual property right has been infringed - Administrative penalty)
   (2009/C 82/12)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   Referring court
   Augstākās tiesas Senāts
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schenker SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction without first determining whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right under law — National legislation providing that an administrative penalty be imposed where the goods declared infringe an intellectual property right
   Operative part of the judgment
   The initiation, with the agreement of an intellectual property right-holder and of the importer, of the simplified procedure laid down in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, does not deprive the competent national authorities of the power to impose, on the parties responsible for importing those goods into the Community customs territory, a ‘penalty’, within the meaning of Article 18 of that regulation, such as an administrative fine.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-474/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

text:
6.4.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/45
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   Luxembourg.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-129/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM).                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case C-474/01 P)
                                                                       (1) declare that, by maintaining the obligation for patent
                                                                             agents, when providing services, either to maintain an
                         (2002/C 84/77)                                      official place of business on Luxembourg territory or,
                                                                             failing that, to maintain an official address care of an
                                                                             approved agent, and by failing to supply information
                                                                             concerning the precise conditions for the application of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September                     Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 and Articles 19
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1988, the Grand
the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter                    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the                         under Article 49 et seq. EC and Article 10 EC respectively;
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the judgment; insofar as the remainder of the
      action was dismissed;
                                                                       —     The obligation to maintain an official address, imposed
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance                 by Article 83(4) of the Law of 20 July 1992, constitutes a
      and on appeal.                                                         restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services
                                                                             as laid down by Article 49 EC, since it impedes the
                                                                             activities of the service provider by causing him to bear
                                                                             additional costs and obliging him to create professional
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              links with a local operator in the same sector, who may
                                                                             even be a competitor. Moreover, that obligation is likely
                                                                             to prompt foreign applicants to have recourse to the
See case C-473/01 P.                                                         services of patent agents established in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 25.                                         —     The fact that the detailed information requested by the
                                                                             Commission has not been supplied means that it is
                                                                             impossible to establish whether it is justified, even as
                                                                             regards straightforward acts of an administrative nature,
                                                                             to require industrial property advisers in other Member
                                                                             States to fulfil the criteria for recognition of their
                                                                             professional        qualifications     (Council     Directive
                                                                             89/48/EEC (1)). That lack of any response constitutes a
Action brought on 11 December 2001 by the Commission                         failure to collaborate within the meaning of Article 10
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                          EC.
                        of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-478/01)
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                           system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                         (2002/C 84/78)                                    on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                           three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 21.1.1989, p. 16).
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 11 December 2001 by


title: Case C-105/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Rural Development — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 33b — Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring — Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-105/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Rural Development - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33b - Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring - Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations))
   (2017/C 144/17)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2003 in Case T-52/00: Coe Clerici Logistics SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Complaint — Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Admissibility — Port services)

text:
C 213/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 June 2003
                           of 2 July 2003
                                                                          in Case T-52/00: Coe Clerici Logistics SpA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
in Case T-99/98: Hameico Stuttgart GmbH and Others v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       (Competition — Complaint — Articles 82 EC and 86 EC —
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                Admissibility — Port services)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/49)
(Actions for damages — Common organisation of the
markets — Bananas — Import scheme — Undertakings in                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                         the former GDR)
                                                                          In Case T-52/00, Coe Clerici Logistics SpA, established in
                          (2003/C 213/48)
                                                                          Trieste (Italy), represented by G. Conte, G.M. Giacomini and
                                                                          E. Minozzi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                   (Language of the case: German)                         v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal
                                                                          and L. Pignataro), supported by Autorità Portuale di Ancona,
                                                                          represented by S. Zunarelli, C. Perrella and P. Manzini, lawyers:
                                                                          Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of
                                                                          20 December 1999 (D 17482) refusing to act on the
In Case T-99/98, Hameico Stuttgart GmbH, formerly A & B                   applicant’s complaint based on Articles 82 EC and 86 EC,
Fruchthandel GmbH, established in Stuttgart (Germany),                    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Amhof Frucht GmbH, established in Schwabhausen                            J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
(Germany), Hameico Dortmund GmbH, formerly Dessau-                        Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Bremer Frucht GmbH, established in Dortmund (Germany),                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2003, in which it:
Hameico Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH, formerly Bremen-
Rostocker-Frucht GmbH, established in Rostock (Germany),                  1.     Dismisses the application;
Leipzig-Bremer Frucht GmbH, established in Leipzig (Ger-
many), represented by G. Schohe, lawyer, with an address for              2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union                           incurred by the Commission;
(Agents: J.-P. Hix and A. Tanca), Commission of the European
                                                                          3.     Orders the Autorità Portuale di Ancona to bear its own costs.
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and A. von Bogdandy),
supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta):
Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suf-                (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
fered by the applicants as a result of the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the
common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993
L 47, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-
munity (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6), the Court of First Instance (First                                     of 9 July 2003
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                 in Case T-102/00 Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie
Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 July 2003, in which it:              van Personen met een Handicap v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                          (Social policy — European Social Fund — Reduction of
                                                                          financial assistance — Right to a fair hearing — Article 24
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs in addition to        of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Statement of reasons)
       those incurred by the Council and the Commission. The
       Kingdom of Spain is to bear its own costs.                                                   (2003/C 213/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                          In Case T-102/00, Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie
                                                                          van Personen met een Handicap, established in Brussels


title: Case C-155/02: Action brought on 26 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 169/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not
                                                                              infringe Article 7 (1) (c) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community
The judgment of the Court of First Instance infringed                         trade mark (2) in adopting its decision of 28 February
Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC), as well                2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) with the exception as regards
as the ‘right to sound administration’ and the Commission’s                   goods in the categories ‘manuals and publications’;
‘general duty of supervision’, in so far as it inferred that
individuals have a right to have their complaint under                  2.    for the rest, annul the decision of the Second Board of
Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) dealt with and                Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
a corresponding right of action. Moreover, it erroneously                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000
inferred that complaints by individuals in the context of                     (Case R 423/1999-2);
Article 90 of the EC Treaty are dismissed by a decision
addressed to the complainant. In that connection the Court of           3.    order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
First Instance has at any rate infringed Article 90(3). If so, and            (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs both at first
in so far as it based its conclusions thereon it has also infringed           instance and on appeal.
the ‘right to sound administration’ and/or the ‘general duty of
supervision’. Finally, the Court infringed Article 173(4) of the
EC Treaty (now Article 230(4) EC) by assuming (in the
alternative) that max.mobil is individually concerned by the
contested letter.                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v
                                                                        The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance
    Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.                                      misinterpreted Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation 40/94 when it
                                                                        held that the aforementioned article prevents the signs or
                                                                        indications referred to in that provision from being reserved
                                                                        to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as
                                                                        a mark and that the provision thus pursues an aim which is in
                                                                        the public interest, namely that such signs or indications may
                                                                        be freely used by all.
Appeal brought on 25 April 2002 by Streamserve Inc.                     In the Appellant’s view the criteria applied by the Court of
against the judgment delivered on 27 February 2002 by                   First Instance in the application of Article 7 (1) (c) to the facts
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    of the case are too severe.
the European Communities in case T-106/00 (1) between
Streamserve Inc. and the Office for Harmonization in the
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                    (1) OJ C 176, 24.6.2000, p. 29.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                         (Case C-150/02 P)
                          (2002/C 169/29)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February                 Action brought on 26 April 2002 by the Commission
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance               of the European Communities against the Republic of
of the European Communities in case T-106/00 between                                                  Austria
Streamserve Inc. and the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), was
                                                                                (Case C-155/02)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 25 April 2002 by Streamserve Inc., established in
Raleigh, North Carolina (United States of America), represented                                 (2002/C 169/30)
by J. Kääriäinen and R. Berzelius, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
1.    annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
      27 February 2002 in case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc. v.            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
      OHIM (‘STREAMSERVE’), in so far as it found that the              Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization            Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
                                                                           Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
                                                                           22 March 2002 in the case of Rieser Internationale
—     declare that by:
                                                                           Transporte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und
                                                                                Schnellstraßen Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft
      (1) not fully transposing into Austrian law by 1 January
            1995, contrary to Article 166 of the Act of
            Accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the
            European Union, Council Directive 89/369/EEC of                                         (Case C-157/02)
            8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from
            new municipal waste incineration plants (1) and
            Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on
                                                                                (2002/C 169/31)
            the reduction of air pollution from existing munici-
            pal waste-incineration plants (2), in so far as it has
            not transposed those directives as required into
            the Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Federal law on waste
            management), the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Austrian
            Trade Code of 1994) and the laws of the federal
            states, or, in any event, not informing the Com-               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            mission of any such transposition, and                         European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
                                                                           Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 22 March 2002,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a
      (2) not correctly or not fully transposing Article 4(1) of           preliminary ruling in the case of Rieser Internationale Trans-
            Directive 89/369/EEC into the Luftreinhaltegesetz              porte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und Schnellstraß-
            für Kesselanlagen (Law on control of air pollution             en Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft on the following ques-
            from boiler plants) and the Luftreinhalteverordnung            tions:
            für Kesselanlagen (Decree on control of air pollution
            from boiler plants), the Republic of Austria has
            failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
                                                                           1.1.    Is the effect of the case-law of the Court of Justice on
—     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                      the ‘functional concept of the State’ that, when concluding
                                                                           contracts with road users, the defendant is required to observe
                                                                           the directly effective provisions of Council Directive 93/89/
                                                                           EEC of 25 October 1993(1) on the application by Member
                                                                           States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                           infrastructures and of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European
—     Incomplete transposition of Directives 89/369/EEC and                Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 (2) on the
      89/429/EEC:                                                          charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain
                                                                           infrastructures, such that the defendant cannot charge a higher
                                                                           toll than those provisions allow?
      The Republic of Austria does not dispute that, with the
      exception of the legislative provisions notified to the
      Commission as transposing those directives (the Law and
      Decree on control of air pollution from boiler plants), the          1.2.    If question 1.1 is answered in the affirmative:
      directives have not been transposed into Austrian law
      and, in particular, they have not been transposed into the
      Federal law on management of waste, the Austrian Trade
      Code of 1994, the Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz               1.2.1. Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89 and
      (Law on environmental impact assessments) and the laws               Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62 have direct effect
      of the federal states on waste management.                           according to the case-law of the Court of Justice such that if
                                                                           the Directives have not been transposed, or have been
                                                                           transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they may be relied
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 4(1) of Directive 89/
                                                                           on in calculating a toll that complies with the Directives for
      369/EEC in the Decree on control of air pollution from
                                                                           vehicles with more than three axles used for the carriage of
      boiler plants: that decree does not contain any of the
                                                                           goods on the full itinerary of the Austrian Brenner motorway?
      technical requirements laid down in Article 4(1) of
      Directive 89/369/EEC.
                                                                           1.2.2.     If question 1.2.1 is answered in the affirmative:
(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50.
                                                                           1.2.2.1. How and by reference to what parameters is the
                                                                           authorised toll for a single journey on the full itinerary to be
                                                                           calculated in the individual case?


title: Case T-448/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  — Oxley Threads v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/42

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 — Oxley Threads v Commission
   (Case T-448/05)
   (2006/C 48/79)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Oxley Threads Ltd (Ashton-Under-Lyne, United Kingdom) [represented by: G. Peretz, Barrister, M. Rees, K. Vernon, Solicitors]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2(b) of the Commission's Decision of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in case 38.337 — PO/Thread insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant of 1.271 million EUR or, in the alternative, reduce that fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested Decision the Commission found that the applicant, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by participating in agreements and concentrated practices affecting the markets of automotive thread in the EEA. As a result, it imposed a fine of 1.271 million EUR on the applicant.
   In support of its application against the contested Decision, the applicant contends first of all that the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as well as its own guidelines when it fixed the starting amount for the fine without taking into account the fact that, contrary to the other participants, the applicant is a small and medium-sized enterprise and very much smaller, by reference to any indicator, to any other participant. According to the applicant, the Commission fixed the same starting amount for it as for two other participants 71 times bigger than it in terms of total turnover. In the same context, the applicant considers that the Commission failed to take the grossly disproportionate impact the fine could be expected to have on it into account or the fact that, at the time of the infringements, it was only becoming established as a significant player in the supply of automotive thread to customers in the EEA outside the United Kingdom. Finally, the applicant submits that according to the Commission's own findings and evidence, its participation in the cartel had less importance and impact on competition than that of other undertakings concerned, in particular the two undertakings for which the same starting amount was fixed.
   The applicant also contends that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons in assessing the appropriate starting amount, that it infringed its own guidelines and committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to take proper account of the degree of cooperation by the applicant and that it infringed its own guidelines, the principle of equal treatment and committed a manifest error of assessment in categorising the cartel in question as a ‘very serious’ infringement.


title: Action brought on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-63/97)

text:
No C 142/28              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                             Action brought on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen
                                                                         against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case T-63/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/60 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').                                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen, of
                                                                         Wanssum ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                         Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                         of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Pleijers against the Council of the European Union and                   Guillaume .
            the Commission of the European Communities
                            ( Case T-60/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                              ( 97/C 142/59 )
                                                                         ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                               applicant the sum of F1 419 246 , together with interest
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full;
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                               think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 86 531
 Communities on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg
 Pleijers, of Wittem ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.                     ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
                                                                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
 Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
                                                                               thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
 van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                               1992 until the date of the payment in full ;
 Guillaume .
                                                                          ( b) order the Community to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                          Case T-50/97 (').
         applicant the sum of Fl 35 953 , together with interest
         thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
         1992 until the date of payment in full;                          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
         in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
         applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
         think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 20 595
         ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           Action brought on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder
         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          against the Council of the European Union and the
         thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May                            Commission of the European Communities
         1992 until the date of the payment in full ;                                                ( Case T-64/97 )
                                                                                97/C 142/61 )
   ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities was
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
   Case T-50/97 0 ).                                                       Communities on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder, of
                                                                           Haarzuilens ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
   (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                           Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                           of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                           Guillaume .


title: Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against SNUA SRL (Servizi Netezza Urbana ed Affini) (Case C-69/97)

text:
No C 131 /4            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 4 . 97
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                 The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            recovery of a financial contribution granted by the
                                                                     applicant to the defendant to enable the latter to complete
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          an integrated private solid waste collection and recycling
                                                                     system . The Commission decided to terminate the
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      contract, governed by Italian law, on the ground that the
     severally to refund ECU 479 134 together with interest          defendant failed to perform its obligations.
     as from the payment of that sum until the date on
     which it is repaid, by monthly instalments of ECU
     1 742 as from 31 July 1990 and of ECU 2 464 as from
     20 April 1991 — that is to say, by total monthly
     instalments of ECU 4 206 as from 20 April 1991 —
     until the date of actual settlement,                            Appeal brought on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat BVBA
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     severally to pay damages to the Commission in the               in    Case    T-87/92       between     Kruidvat    BVBA       and
     amount of ECU 100 000 or such sum as the Court                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
     may deem to be appropriate,                                     Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats
                                                                     européens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      cosmétiques and Fédération européenne des parfumeurs
     severally to pay the costs.                                                                  détaillants
                                                                                ( Case C-70/97 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/09 )
The object of this action, which is based on an arbitration
clause, is to recover financial assistance which the                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
Commission granted the defendants so that they could                  1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
construct a dual generator to produce electricity and heat           Communities in Case T- 8 7/92 between Kruidvat BVBA
from biomass consisting of rice production residue (chaff            and Commission of the European Communities, supported
and husks). The Commission decided to withdraw from                  by Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats
the contract, drawn up between the parties in accordance             europèens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des
with Italian law, on account of the defendants' failure to           cosmétiques and Federation européenne des parfumeurs
perform their obligations thereunder.                                détaillants, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat
                                                                     BVBA, represented by O. W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam
                                                                     Bar, and F. P. Louis and P. Wytinck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against SNUA SRL ( Servizi              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                    Netezza Urbana ed Affini)
                          Case C-69/97                               — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          12 December 1996 in Case T-87/92 and, if possible,
                          ( 97/C 131/08 )                                 itself declare admissible the action for annulment
                                                                          brought by Kruidvat BVBA before the Court of First
 An action against SNUA SRL ( Servizi Netezza Urbana ed                   Instance, and
 Affini) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 18 February 1997 by ' the                   — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
 Commission of the European Communities, represented                      proceedings.
 by Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-Francis Pasquier, of its
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,              — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
 of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi,              the EC Treaty
 Kirchberg.
                                                                          — by inaccurate interpretation and incorrect
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   application of the conditions relating to
                                                                               participation in the competition procedure as an
 — order SNUA to repay ECU 195 397, together with                              element distinguishing a party individually for the
      interest at a rate of ECU 43,09 per day as from 1 April                  purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
      1988 until the date of actual payment,                                   the EC Treaty,
 — order SNUA to pay to the Commission ECU 60 000,                        — by the finding that the Commission's contested
      or another appropriate sum, by way of damages, and                       decision   was     not    of   individual  concern     to
                                                                               Kruidvat, despite the fact that at the time it was
 — order SNUA to pay the costs.                                                adopted Kruidvat was already involved in


title: Case C-301/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 June 2007 — PAGO International GmbH v Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 June 2007 — PAGO International GmbH v Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH
   (Case C-301/07)
   (2007/C 223/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PAGO International GmbH

      Defendant: Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Community trade mark protected in the whole of the Community as a ‘trade mark with a reputation’ for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1) (Regulation 40/94) if it has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative: is a mark which has a ‘reputation’ only in one Member State protected in that Member State under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94, so that a prohibition limited to that Member State may be issued?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 1999 in Case C-218/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud'hommes du Havre): Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and Others v Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA (Interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and of Directives 75/117/EEC and 76/207/EEC - Collective agreement providing for an allowance for pregnant women going on maternity leave)

text:
C 366/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18.12.1999
1. Article 18(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993            implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public      and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and                 training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending                 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning               J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitin-
    the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         ho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Edward,
    contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts          Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
    respectively must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting       given a judgment on 16 September 1999, in which it has
    authority is not required to award the contract to the only            ruled:
    tenderer judged to be suitable.
                                                                           The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the EC Treaty
2. Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive               (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
    97/52, can be relied on by an individual before the national           Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does not preclude the making of a
    courts.                                                                lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity
                                                                           leave where that payment is designed to offset the occupational
(1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of their being
                                                                           away from work.
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 September 1999
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-218/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil de Prud’hommes du Havre): Oumar Dabo                                                  of 21 September 1999
Abdoulaye and Others v Régie Nationale des Usines
                           Renault SA (1)                                  in Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
(Interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117
to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136                 (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
EC to 143 EC) and of Directives 75/117/EEC and                             the effects of certain public or private projects — Setting of
76/207/EEC — Collective agreement providing for an allow-                                                thresholds)
     ance for pregnant women going on maternity leave)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/10)
                          (1999/C 366/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Agent: Richard B. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: Michael
                                                                           A. Buckley, assisted by Philip O’Sullivan and Niamh Hyland)
In Case C-281/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil de                     necessary measures to ensure the correct transposition of
Prud’hommes du Havre, France, for a preliminary ruling in the              Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
proceedings pending before that court between Oumar Dabo                   ment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
Abdoulaye and Others and Régie Nationale des Usines Renault                the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), Ireland has failed to
SA — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty                 fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 12
(Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by                thereof, and under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), of Council Directive 75/117/EEC                composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
Member States relating to the application of the principle of              L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) and of                   L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                     judgment on 21 September 1999, in which it:


title: Case T-24/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Stainless steel flat products — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after expiry of the ECSC Treaty, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Alloy surcharge — Powers of the Commission — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Res judicata — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Limitation period — Principle of non bis in idem — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission
   (Case T-24/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Stainless steel flat products - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after expiry of the ECSC Treaty, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Alloy surcharge - Powers of the Commission - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Res judicata - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Limitation period - Principle of non bis in idem - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
   2009/C 193/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and O. Weber, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, in whole or in part, of the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] (Case No COMP/F/39.234 — Alloy surcharge — readoption) and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Stainless by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/41

         Removal from the Register of Case T-391/04 (1)

   (2005/C 115/77)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 14 February 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-391/04, Bernard Nonat v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-40/00: Action brought on 24 February 2000 by the Consorzio Industric Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
Action brought on 24 February 2000 by the Consorzio                      In the present case, the fact that the Italian State has no
Industric Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the                 interest in denying the CIF knowledge of the Commission’s
                   European Communities                                  investigation of the consortium’s arrangements is evident from
                                                                         the fact that the Amministrazione dei Monopoli (cf. the
                                                                         Monopolies Commission) has granted the CIF access to
                         (Case T-40/00)                                  all documents (national and Community) relating to that
                                                                         procedure. Furthermore, the documentation requested con-
                                                                         cerns investigations which have been closed for years.
                        (2000/C 135/34)
                                                                         Lastly, the CIF maintains that its rights of defence have been
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                        infringed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               (1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
European Communities on 24 February 2000 by the Consor-
zio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), with Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service
in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand Sablon.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested measure;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.              Action brought on 25 February 2000 by British American
                                                                         Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-41/00)
The CIF seeks annulment of the Commission’s measure of
29 March 1999 requesting that the Communication sent by                                          (2000/C 135/35)
the Commission to the Italian anti-trust authorities in the
context of a preliminary investigation be classified as secret.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Those authorities have brought ‘anti-trust’ proceedings against
the CIF and members of the consortium, seeking a declaration
that they have infringed Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In the statement of complaints, the following infringements of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Article 81 were alleged: an agreement between the members                European Communities on 25 February 2000 by British
of the consortium with a view to partition of production                 American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V., having its
through consortium bodies, an agreement between the CIF                  registered office in the Netherlands, represented by Scott
and Swedisch Match SA with a view to partition of the Italian            Crosby, Solicitor, of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond
match market, and an agreement between the CIF and                       Point Schuman, Brussels.
the Consorzio Nazionale Attività Economica Distributiva
Integrata.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the CIF, the Commission based its refusal on the
provisions of the Code of Conduct on public access to                    — annul the decision of the Commission of 20 January
Commission documents, approved by Commission Decision                        2000 refusing access to the minutes of the Excise Duty
No 90/40/ECSC, EC, Euratom (1). The CIF maintains that, in so                Committee in relation to discussions on Articles 7, 8, 9,
doing, the Commission acted incorrectly, since that Decision                 10, 23, 27 and 28 of Directive 92/12/EEC since 1 January
in no way permits documents such as those at issue to be                     1993 in the Committee’s non-comitology capacity;
classified as secret. Specifically, such documentation is not
covered by the exception relating to protection of the public
interest. That derogation can be justified only where the                — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
Member States concerned have a right to expect that the                      to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Commission respect confidentiality.                                          Instance.


C 275/54              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
—    Breach of the vacancy notice in that the Commission, in                     Removal from the register of Case T-58/02 (1)
     disregard of the decision made by the selection board,
     erred in its assessment of the applicant’s professional                                       (2003/C 275/91)
     qualifications, which perfectly matched the requirements
     set out in the vacancy notice and qualified him for                                    (Language of the Case: English)
     admission also to a Category B post.
—    Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            By order of 15 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
     the principles of sound administration.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-58/02:
                                                                          Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
       Removal from the register of Case T-33/01 (1)
                        (2003/C 275/90)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                              Removal from the register of Case T-143/03 R (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/92)
By order of 24 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
ordered the removal of the name of Kirch Media GmbH & Co
KgaA from the register of Case T-33/01: Kirch Media GmbH
& Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG v Commission of the                        By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of First
European Communities.                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case T-143/03: Elisabeth Saskia Smit v
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                          Europol.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-502/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/30

         Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)
   (Case T-502/11)
   2011/C 340/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of crossing sickles, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5164561

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 94500834, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 620636, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 627401, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76 and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks was no longer raised in the appeal proceedings, and did not properly assess the likelihood of confusion.