title: Case C-389/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2011 by Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis v Commission.

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/4

         Appeal brought on 22 July 2011 by Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis v Commission.
   (Case C-389/11 P)
   2011/C 290/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais (represented by: M. Cliquennois and F. Cavedon, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance by the Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, the Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais claims that the General Court erred in refusing to examine the grounds of complaint against Commission Decision C(2008) 1089 final of 2 April 2008, withdrawn and replaced by Commission Decision C(2010) 4112 final of 23 June 2010, both decisions relating to the same State aid, C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007). According to the appellant, the further decision was in fact a response to the written pleadings which the appellant had submitted in its initial action before the General Court, and the appellant was given no opportunity to be heard within a further prior administrative procedure.
   Second, the appellant claims an infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the right to be heard within the administrative procedure in that the Commission adopted a further decision while absolving itself of the obligation to comply with the essential procedural requirements of that adoption. The Commission altered its analysis on the nature of the State measure at issue and revised the method for the calculation of the reference rates applicable when the State aid in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA was granted.


title: Case F-35/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 — Svitana v Parliament

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 — Svitana v Parliament
   (Case F-35/11) (1)

   2012/C 138/105
   Language of the case: Slovakian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 33.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 2 May 1996 in Case C-234/95: the Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC)

text:
22 . 6 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/ 15
     on the national courts. However, the national courts                   C-45/90 Paletta v. Brennet [1992] ECR 1-3423, does not
     may still ask the Court ofJustice to rule on their validity            imply that employers are barred from adducing evidence
     or interpretation.                                                     to support, where appropriate, a finding by the national
                                                                            court of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the
(') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 , OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .               worker concerned in that, although he may claim to
                                                                            have become incapacitated for work, such incapacity
                                                                            having been certified in accordance with Article 18 of
                                                                            that Regulation, he was not sick at all.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 2 May 1996
in Case C-206/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Brennet AG v. Vittorio
                              Paletta ( 1 )
   (Social security — Recognition of incapacity for work)                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 180/29 )                                                      ( Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 2 May 1996
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       in Case C-234/95 : the Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic ( a )
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 92/50/EEC)
In Case C-206/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                       ( 96/C 180/30 )
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
Labour Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                             (Language of the case: French)
pending before that court between Brennet AG and Vittorio
Paletta — on the interpretation of Article 22 ( 1 ) of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
application of social security schemes to employed persons                       published in the European Court Reports)
and their families moving within the Community ( OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 ), as amended by          In Case C-234/95 : Commission of the European
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ             Communities ( Agent : Hendrik van Lier ) v . French Republic
No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 ), and on the interpretation and validity       ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Philippe Martinet ) —
of Article 18 ( 1 ) to ( 5 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )             application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( OJ, English               order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p . 159 ) — the Court, composed of         18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, J. -P.            the award of public service contracts ( OJ No L 209, 1992 ,
Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.             p . 1 ) and, in the alternative , by failing to inform the
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                 Commission of such measures forthwith, the French
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and            Republic vhas failed to fulfil its obligations under that
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.                     Directive and, in particular, Article 44 thereof — the Court
Cosmas , Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl , Principal                     ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May             of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ),
 1996, the operative part of which is as follows:                      L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola ,
                                                                       Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
I. Article 22 (1 ) (a) (ii) of Council Regulation (EEC)                2 May 1996 , in which it:
     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial
     security schemes to employed persons and their families           1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
     moving within the Community, as amended by Council                     period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, is to be                  provisions needed in order to comply with Council
     interpreted as covering national legislation under which               Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     an employee is entitled, on becoming incapacitated for                 coordination of procedures for the award of public
     work, to continued payment of his wages for a certain                  service contracts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
     period, even where those wages are not payable until a                 its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that Directive.
     given period has elapsed since the incapacity
     commenced.
                                                                       2 . Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2 . The interpretation of Article 18 (1 ) to (5) of Council
                                                                       (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing
     the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC)
     No 1408/71 , given by the Court in its judgment in Case


title: Case T-198/10: Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Maximuscle Limited v OHIM — Foreign Supplement Trade Mark Ltd (GAKIC)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/47

         Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Maximuscle Limited v OHIM — Foreign Supplement Trade Mark Ltd (GAKIC)
   (Case T-198/10)
   2010/C 179/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maximuscle Ltd (Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and G. Fernando, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Foreign Supplement Trademark Ltd (Oakville, Canada)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2010 in case R 1621/2008-1, and remit the matter alternatively altered;

               —

               In the alternative, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2010 in case R 1621/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs incurred in these proceedings as well as those incurred before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark “GAKIC” for goods in classes 5, 30 and 32.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark cited in the invalidity proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and, as a result, rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity of the registered Community trade mark in question

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) repeated the error of the Cancellation Division and wrongly considered the case as if made under Article 7(1)(d), (ii) wrongly found significance in the fact that glycine-alpha-ketoisocaproic acid, of which GAKIC is an abbreviated form, is a patented compound in the United States, (iii) failed to consider material after the registration date, on the basis that it had no probative value, (iv) failed to consider evidence on the basis that it related to a website connected with the applicant, (v) had an inconsistent approach, given the finding that GAKIC was an abbreviated form of glycine-alpha-ketoisocaproic acid, (vi) mischaracterised evidence and failed to give proper weight to evidence showing that ‘GAKIC’ was the natural abbreviation of glycine [(G)]-alpha [(A)]-ketoisocaproic [(KIC)] acid, and (vii) wrongly found trade mark significance in the capitalisation of the words ‘GAKIC’.


title: Case T-54/14: Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Goldfish and Others v Commission

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/28

      Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Goldfish and Others v Commission
      (Case T-54/14)
      (2014/C 71/51)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp), and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul, fully or in part, the Decision insofar as it is addressed to the applicants;

                  —

                  annul, or reduce, the fine imposed on the applicants;

                  —

                  adopt the measures which the Court considers necessary;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicants contest the decision of the Commission of 27 November 2013 in a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.39633 — Shrimps).
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) due to the Commission’s use of secretly-recorded audio recordings as evidence of infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 due to the Commission’s use of notes from secretly-recorded audio recordings as evidence of infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging an unlawful refusal to apply paragraph 35 of the Fining Guidelines, (2) due to the Commission refusing to take into account the inability of the applicants to pay the fine.

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

         (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-215/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 — American Clothing Associates v OHIM (Representation of a maple leaf) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a maple leaf — Absolute ground for refusal — Service mark — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 6ter of the Paris Convention — Matters of law brought before the departments of OHIM and before the Court)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 — American Clothing Associates v OHIM (Representation of a maple leaf)
   (Case T-215/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a maple leaf - Absolute ground for refusal - Service mark - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 6ter of the Paris Convention - Matters of law brought before the departments of OHIM and before the Court)
   (2008/C 92/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: American Clothing Associates SA (Evergem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) concerning the application for registration of a sign representing a maple leaf as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1463/2005-1) in so far as it relates to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the services in Class 40 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and corresponding to the following description: ‘Tailoring; taxidermy; bookbinding; dressing, processing and finishing of skins, leather, furs and textiles; photographic film development and photographic printing; woodworking; fruit pressing; grain milling; processing, tempering and finishing of metal surfaces’;

               2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case C-358/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Gestione Servizi Pubblici Srl v Commune di Baranzate

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Gestione Servizi Pubblici Srl v Commune di Baranzate
   (Case C-358/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gestione Servizi Pubblici Srl

      Defendant: Commune di Baranzate

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the correct application of Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) preclude the provisions of national law laid down in Article 32(7)(a) of Legislative Decree No 185 of 29 November 2008, added by Converting Law No 2 of 28 January 2009 and subsequently amended by Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, under which:

                           —

                           the award of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue to persons who fail to satisfy the minimum financial requirement of fully paid up share capital in the sum of EUR 10 million is to be null and void;

                           —

                           persons entered in the relevant register of private persons authorised to carry out activities relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other revenue of the provinces and municipalities are required to bring their share capital up to the minimum figure in question, pursuant to Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 446 of 15 December 1997, as subsequently amended;

                           —

                           it is prohibited to acquire new contracts or participate in tender procedures for the operation of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue until the abovementioned requirement to adjust share capital has been met; and

                     companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership are excluded from those provisions?

               2.

               Does the correct application of Articles 3, 10, 43, 49 and 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community preclude the provisions of national law laid down in Article 32(7)(a) of Legislative Decree No 185 of 29 November 2008, added by Converting Law No 2 of 28 January 2009 and subsequently amended by Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, under which:

                           —

                           the award of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue to persons who fail to satisfy the minimum financial requirement of fully paid up share capital in the sum of EUR 10 million is to be null and void;

                           —

                           persons entered in the relevant register of private persons authorised to carry out activities relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other revenue of the provinces and municipalities are required to bring their share capital up to the minimum figure in question, pursuant to Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 446 of 15 December 1997, as subsequently amended;

                           —

                           it is prohibited to acquire new contracts or participate in tender procedures for the operation of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue until the abovementioned requirement to adjust share capital has been met; and

                     companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership are excluded from those provisions?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 October 1995 in Case T-185/94: Geotronics SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Phare programme - Restricted invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility - EEA Agreement - Action for damages)

text:
9 . 12 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 333/ 13
— ( As regards workers residing for less than three                          a simple attestation of the fact that the worker
      months )                                                               concerned has reported his presence on Belgian territory
      Although Article 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( c ) of Directive                  (Article 8 ( 2 ) of Directive 68/360/EEC ).
      68/360/EEC provides that Member States are, without
                                                                      (') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 485 .
      issuing a residence permit, to recognize the right of           ( 2 ) Law of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence,
      residence , the Belgian legislation in force requires the             establishment and the departure of aliens ( as amended by the
      persons concerned to apply for a document ( the issue of              Law of 6 May 1993 ); Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on access
      which may, depending on the commune involved, give                    to the territory, residence , establishment and the departure of
      rise to the payment of a charge ) amounting to more than              aliens ( as amended several times ).
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;
                       of 19 October 1995
in Case T-194/94 : John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers                4 . orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the
            Ltd v. Council of the European Union ( 1 )                       Netherlands and the European Parliament to bear their
                                                                             own costs .
(Transparency — Access to information — Council
Decision refusing access to documents relating to its
deliberations — Interpretation of Article 4 (2) of Decision           (•) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
                             93/731/EC)
                           ( 95/C 333/25 )
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-194/94 : John Carvel, residing in Brussels, and              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Guardian Newspapers Ltd, whose registered office is in                                          of 26 October 1995
Manchester, United Kingdom, represented by Onno
                                                                      in Case T-l 85 /94 : Geotronics SA v. Commission of the
W. Brouwer and Frederic P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
assisted by Deirdre Curtin, of the University of Utrecht, with                              European Communities ( L )
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                (Phare programme — Restricted invitation to tender —
Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by Kingdom of                   Action for annulment — Admissibility — EEA Agree
Denmark, ( Agent: Peter Biering ), Kingdom of the                                         ment — Action for damages)
Netherlands ( Agents : A. Bos and J. W. de Zwaan ) and                                              ( 95/C 333/26 )
European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio Garzon Clariana
and Francois Vainker ) against Council of the European
Union ( Agents : Jill Aussant and Giorgio Maganza ) —                                    (Language of the case: English)
application for annulment of decisions of the Council
adopted pursuant to Council Decision 93/731 /EC of
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents                In Case T-l 85/94 : Geotronics SA, a company with its
( OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43 ) — the Court of First Instance                registered office at Lognes ( France ), represented by Tommy
 ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of                Pettersson, of the Swedish Bar, with an address for service in
B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio,              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,
H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,                   8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 October 1995 , in which               European Communities ( Agents : Karen Banks and, at the
 it :                                                                  hearing, John Forman ) — application for, first, the
                                                                       annulment of the Commission 's decision of 10 March 1994
                                                                       rejecting the applicant's tender for the supply of electronic
 I . annuls the implied decision of the Council refusing the           tacheometers under the Phare Programme, and, second,
       applicants access to the preparatory reports, the               compensation under Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty
       minutes, attendance and voting records of the Justice           for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered
       Council of 29 and 30 November 1993 and the decision             as a result of the contested decision — the Court of First
       contained in the letter of the Council of 17 May 1994           Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts
       refusing access to the minutes of the Agriculture Council       ( President of the Chamber ), R. Schintgen and
       of 24 and 25 January 1 994;                                     R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1995 in
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                       which it:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
1 . dismisses the application in its entirety;                         of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Rue de la Porte
2 . orders the applicant to pay all the costs, including those         Neuve .
      of the proceedings for interim measures.
(') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities of 12 May 1995 , notified on 25 May
                                                                             1995 , discontinuing the EAGGF aid granted to it,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       — in the alternative, declare unlawful the steps taken for
                      of 11 October 1995                                     recovery of the sum of Lit 314 741 984,
in Case T-302/94 : Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          and seeks the reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings
                          (Inadmissibility)                            in accordance with the Rules of Procedure .
                            ( 95/C 333/27 )
                (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
In Case T-302/94 : Dimitrios Coussios, a former official of            The applicant obtained from the Commission by a decision
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                of 28 November 1984 aid in the amount of Lit 494 946 104,
by Georges Sakellaropoulous, of the Athens Bar, with an                of which Lit 314 741 984 was paid on 24 July 1987. The aid
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   was granted for the purpose of completing an aquaculture
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the                         production unit in Orbetello (Tuscany, Italy ) on the basis of
European Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —               a project submitted by the applicant. Since there had arisen a
application for annulment of the decision of Commission                difficulty while the project was being carried out not in
appointing Mr Claude Probst to the post of Head of Unit                respect of the aquaculture production plant but rather for
VII . C. 93 with effect from 1 December 1993 — the Court of            the construction of a shed required for use in the business,
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of                         the applicant company asked for the project to be
D. P. M. Barrington, President, and K. Lenaerts and                    considered concluded when it was 70 % completed, waiving
P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                 payment of the remainder of the aid in respect of the Lit
11 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                    314 741 984 previously granted . The Italian Ministry for
follows :                                                              the Merchant Navy informed the applicant that such a
                                                                       request could not be accepted since the company had not
                                                                       obtained the certificate of fitness for use of the plant which
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      was defined as a 'conditio sine qua non for payment of the
                                                                       aid'. By letter of 14 April 1994 the Commission informed
2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                   the applicant that, in the absence of such a certificate, the
                                                                       procedure for discontinuing the aid would be put into effect.
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .                                     The EAGGF aid granted to the applicant was dicontinued
                                                                       by way of the decision of the Commission of 12 May 1995 ,
                                                                       which is the subject-matter of these proceedings .
                                                                       The application is based on the following grounds :
Action brought on 31 July 1995 by Ittima Maremmana                     ( a ) Infringement of Community law
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-154/95 )
                                                                              — In the notice granting aid there is no mention of the
                            ( 95/C 333/28 )                                      relevant national authority having been designated
                                                                                ( Article 18 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                 No 2908/83 ). The Ministry for the Merchant Navy
                                                                                ' appears' during the course of the procedure . That
                                                                                central national authority, whenever, however or
An action against the Commission of the European                                  by whomever it has been appointed, is nonetheless
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                incompetent to carry out the duties laid down in the
Instance of the European Communities on 31 July 1995 by                          abovementioned regulation . Its 'insertion' into the
Ittima Maremmana, whose registered office is at Rome,                            procedure thus constitutes an infringement of that
represented by Sergio Barenghi and Alessandro Pallottino,                        regulation .


title: Case C-97/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Hassan Osseili v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
C 160/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Hassan
              Osseili v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                             Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless
                                                                              workers and to members of their families who have
                          (Case C-97/99)                                      travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member
                                                                              country and have not moved within the Community?
                         (1999/C 160/17)
                                                                         (1) JO L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       p. 416.
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hassan Osseili v. Bundesan-
stalt für Arbeit on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to               Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-              against Council of the European Union and Commission
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply                            of the European Communities
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if
     such persons have no right of free movement under the                                        (Case C-100/99)
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
     on the European Union?                                                                       (1999/C 160/19)
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
     Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     workers and to members of their families who have                   17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by
     travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member              Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Danilo Del
     country and have not moved within the Community?                    Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
(1) JO L 149 , 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
    p. 416.                                                              The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         — annul the contested regulations (1)
                                                                         — order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of
       Mohamad Nasser v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart                      1.     The amendment to Article 4 of Regulation (EC)
                                                                         No 2799/98, contained in Article 2 of Regulation (EC)
                          (Case C-98/99)                                 No 2800/98, applies to the participating Member States the
                                                                         same prohibition provided for in respect of the non-
                                                                         participating Member States to grant compensatory aid for
                         (1999/C 160/18)                                 prices and amounts other than those referred to in Article 5 of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 that does not exceed appreciable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   revaluation of 2,6 %.
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                That requirement constitutes, by its undifferentiated nature, a
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for                     distortion to the disadvantage of the participating currencies,
a preliminary ruling in the case of Mohamad Nasser v.                    in particular those which can show an ‘appreciable’ income
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart on the following questions:                   loss in converting to the euro, and is contrary to the principles
                                                                         and objectives of the common agricultural policy, and in
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June               particular to Articles 39 and 40 of the Treaty and to the
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to               principle of proportionality.
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if            2.     The second complaint concerns the way in which
     such persons have no right of free movement under the               the compensatory mechanism provided for in Article 4 of
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European                   Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 has been applied, in particular as
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992              regards the determination of the flat-rate income loss which,
     on the European Union?                                              for certain products, is unjustified and unfair.


title: Case C-382/07: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/40

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-382/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/73)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Action brought on 28 June 1996 by Gencor Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-102/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 1996 by
                                                                      Gencor Ltd, represented by K. P. E. Lasok QC and D. F.
— annul the Commission decision of 24 May 1995 to                     Hall, of Linklaters & Paines, Solicitors, London, with an
     review the applicant's classification in so far as it sets       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     that classification at grade A 7, step 2 , at 1 June 1991        Maitre Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
     and at grade A 7, step 3 , at 1 June 1993 , with effect from
     28 September 1993 , and not at grade A 7, step 3 , at
     1 June 1991 and at grade A 7, step 4, at the same dates,         The applicant claims that the Court should :
     with effect from 1 June 1991 ,
— order the Commission to pay him interest at an annual               — annul the decision made by the Commission on 24 April
     rate of 8 % on the amounts which he claims are owing to                1996 ('the contested decision') pursuant to Article 8 ( 3 )
     him, with effect from the date on which he ought to have               of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 declaring a
     been entitled to them,                                                 concentration to be incompatible with the common
                                                                            market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement ( case
                                                                            No IV/M.619 Gencor/Lonrho ),
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
The applicant, a former category B official and at present an
official in grade A 7, step 2, contests the appointing                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
authority's refusal to take into account, pursuant to
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, all of his professional
experience at a level equivalent to category A prior to               The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of
entering the Commission 's service, acquired in the Spanish           and established within the Republic of South Africa , seeks
Embassy in Brussels between 1976 and 1986 , for the                   the annulment of a decision made by the Commission on
purposes of his classification when moving from category B            24 April 1996 ( the contested decision ). By Article 1 of the
                                                                      contested decision, the Commission declared that a
to category A. The applicant also points out that he has,
since 5 July 1982, had a diploma in economic and consular             proposed concentration, involving the acquisition by the
sciences .                                                            applicant and Lonrho Pic, a company incorporated under
                                                                      the laws of England, of joint control of a South African
                                                                      company ( Impala Platinum Holdings Limited ) and the
As a successful candidate in competition CES/A/6/89, the              South African companies forming what is known as the
applicant was in June 1991 appointed an official in grade             Lonrho        Platinum   Division   ('the  concentration'),    is
A 7, step 1 . Following the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                      incompatible with the common market and the functioning
Instance of 28 September 1993 in Joined Cases T-103/92,
                                                                      of the EEA Agreement .
T-104/92 and T-105/92 Baiwir, the applicant requested that
his classification be reviewed . The appointing authority
agreed to reclassify him in step 2 of grade A 7 . The applicant,      The applicant submits that the contested decision should be
however believes that he was entitled to be reclassified in           annulled for the following reasons :
step 3 .
                                                                      ( a ) the Commission had no extraterritorial jurisdiction
The applicant argues in this regard that there has been a                    over the concentration under Regulation ( EEC )
breach of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and of                         No 4064/89 ;
Articles 6 and 8 of the Commission decision of 1 September
1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and           ( b ) Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 does not apply to
classification in step at the time of recruitment, as well as a              concentrations that create or lead to 'oligopolistic
breach of the principle of equal treatment.                                  dominance';
                                                                      ( c ) even if it would or might in principle apply to such a
                                                                             concentration, Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 does not
                                                                             empower the Commission to declare a concentration to
                                                                             be incompatible with the common market on the
                                                                             ground that it would create or lead to ' oligopolistic
Action brought on 28 June 1996 by Gencor Ltd against the                     dominance';
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T- 102/96 )                            ( d ) even if Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 does empower
                          ( 96/C 247/42 )                                    the Commission to declare a concentation to be
                                                                             incompatible with the common market on that ground ,
                                                                             the facts do not support such a conclusion in the present
                (Language of the case: English)                              case ;
An action against the Commission of the European                      ( e ) the Commission erred in law in refusing to accept the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                            commitments offered by the applicant;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 247/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 8 . 96
( f) the reasoning advanced by the Commission in support               legislative activities and application of Community law', in
       of its conclusions does not comply with the                     that it provides for the post to be filled at grade A 4/A 5 , in so
       Commission's obligations under Article 190 of the EC            far as this circumstance prevented him from applying,
       Treaty to state the reasons on which its decisions are          despite the fact that he has held that post for several
       based so as to enable the Court to exercise its powers of       years .
       judicial review, the parties to defend their rights and the
       Member States and other interested parties to ascertain         In the applicant's opinion, the post in question should not
       the circumstances in which the Commission has applied           have been advertised as an A 4/A 5 post since it has all the
       the Treaty .                                                    features for classification as an A 3 post, whether with
                                                                       regard to the tasks associated with the post or to the number
                                                                       of officials serving within the unit. From this the applicant
                                                                       concludes that the contested decision is vitiated by a
                                                                       manifest error in the assessment of the facts as well as by an
Action brought on 4 July 1996 by Ludwig Kramer against                 error of law .
          Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T- 104/96 )                            The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                       Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and a misuse of powers,
                           ( 96/C 247/43 )                             arguing that the decision to advertise the post of head of unit
                                                                       B3 in DG XI as a post at grade A 4/A 5 was not taken in the
                  (Language of the case: French)                       interest of the service but rather with a view to preventing
                                                                       his application in favour of a candidate chosen on the basis
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       of his nationality and not on that of his ability and
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      experience within the relevant area .
Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1996
by Ludwig Kramer, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-209/95 ( )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/44 )
— annul the publication notice for the post of head of unit
     for unit XI . B. 3 as a post at grade A 4/A 5                                    (Language of the case: English)
     ( COM/111 /95 ),
— consequently annul the appointment of a grade A 5                    By order of 15 July 1996 , the President of the First Chamber
     candidate,                                                        ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities ordered the removal from the
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                       register of Case T-209/95 : Windstar Sail Cruises Limited,
                                                                       Wind Star Limited and Wind Spirit Limited v. Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       of the European Communities .
The applicant, a grade A 3 official , contests the vacancy
notice for the post of head of unit XI . B. 3 ' Legal affairs,         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 October 1997 in Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services NV v. Commission of the European Communities (Tender for the transportation of free supplies of agricultural products intended for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan - Refusal by the Commission to pay to the successful transportation tenderer the whole of the price claimed - Action for annulment - Action constituting in actual fact an action for performance of a transportation contract - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment)

text:
C 7/14                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 27 November 1997                                                    of 27 November 1997
in Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay and Others v.                           in Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall v. Commission of the
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                         European Communities (1)
(Competition Ð Copyright Ð Rejection of a complaint Ð                    (Officials Ð Member of the temporary staff in the
Enforcement of a judgment setting aside a decision Ð                     scientific and technical services Ð Appointment to a post
Partitioning of market Ð Statement of reasons Ð Misuse                   covered by the operating budget Ð Withdrawal of a
                             of powers)                                  decision granting further advancement to a higher step on
                                                                                account of exceptional merit)
                            (98/C 7/46)
                                                                                (98/C 7/47)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay, residing in Vernantes                  In Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall, an official of the
(France), Harry Kestenberg, residing in Saint-AndreÂ-les-                Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Vergers (France), and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de               Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Loisirs (SELL), established in Paris, represented by Jean                Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz,                Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, v.
4, rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, supported by Music Users'                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana
Council of Europe (MUCE), established in Uxbridge                        Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for annulment of the
(United Kingdom), represented by Jean-Louis Fourgoux,                    Commission's decision of 26 June 1995 withdrawing its
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                         decision of 18 October 1994 granting the applicant
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue                    further advancement to a higher step Ð the Court of First
BeÂatrix de Bourbon, Associazione Italiana Imprenditori                  Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
Locali da Ballo (SILB), established in Rome, represented                 President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura
by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an                       Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     has given a judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it:
Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         1. Dismisses the action.
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier), supported by The
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Jean-Marc Belorgey), application, first, for annulment of                2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
the Commission decision of 13 October 1995 rejecting the                     pay the costs of the applicant.
complaints made on 4 February 1986, in particular by
Messrs Tremblay and Kesterberg, pursuant to Article 3 (2)                (1) OJ C 108, 13. 4. 1996.
of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the
Treaty (2), concerning the existence of market sharing and
the total partitioning of the market said to result
therefrom, as between the societies which manage
copyright in the various Member States and, secondly, an                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order against the Commission requiring it to carry out the
investigations necessary in order to establish the existence                                   of 3 October 1997
of the restrictive agreement complained of Ð the Court of                in Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services
First Instance of the European Communities (Third                            NV v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, A.
                                                                         (Tender for the transportation of free supplies of
Kalogeropoulos and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar: M. A.
                                                                         agricultural products intended for the peoples of Armenia
Mair, Administrator, has given a judgment on
                                                                         and Azerbaijan Ð Refusal by the Commission to pay to
27 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                         the successful transportation tenderer the whole of the
                                                                         price claimed Ð Action for annulment Ð Action
1. Dismisses the action;                                                 constituting in actual fact an action for performance of a
                                                                         transportation contract Ð Manifest lack of jurisdiction of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance Ð Manifest inadmissibility of
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                                                 the action for annulment)
                                                                                (98/C 7/48)
3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996.
(2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1959Ð62, p. 87.
                                                                         In Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services
                                                                         NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Jan
                                                                         Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar, with an address for service
 ---pagebreak--- 10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/15
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Heinrich Heine, v. Commission of the European                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Communities (Agents: Blanca VilaÂ Costa and Hubert van                                   of 8 October 1997
Vliet) Ð application for payment of the whole of the sum
charged for the transportation of free supplies of fruit           in Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
juice and fruit jams intended for the peoples of Armenia                 Sucre (CEFS) v. Council of the European Union
and Azerbaijan Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                (Sugar Ð Common organization of the markets Ð Fixing
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.          of intervention prices Ð Interim measures procedure Ð
BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                            Suspension of operation)
order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                                                (98/C 7/50)
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly                      (Language of the case: English)
     inadmissible.
                                                                   In Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                      Sucre (CEFS), established in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio García Porras,
(1) OJ C 26, 25. 1. 1997.                                          of the Salamanca Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12,
                                                                   boulevard de la Foire, against Council of the European
                                                                   Union (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Ignacio Díez Parra),
                                                                   supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: James MacDonald Flett and Xavier Lewis) Ð
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              application pursuant to Articles 185 and 186 of the EC
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Treaty for suspension of the operation of Article 1 (f) of
                                                                   Council Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997
                     of 26 September 1997                          fixing, for the 1997/98 marketing year, the derived
in Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli and others v.                    intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price
         Commission of the European Communities                    for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and
                                                                   the amount of compensation for storage costs (1), in so far
(Community technological research and development
                                                                   as it affects European sugar producers or otherwise erga
policy Ð MAST III programme Ð Decision establishing
                                                                   omnes, and for all other such interim measures as the
the list of proposed actions eligible for a Community
                                                                   Court should judge necessary Ð the President of the
contribution Ð Procedure for interim relief Ð Application
                                                                   Court of First Instance has made an order on 8 October
         for suspension of operation of a measure)
                                                                   1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (98/C 7/49)
                                                                   1. The Commission is granted leave to intervene in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         support of the form of order sought by the Council.
In Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo           2. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Nike Bianchi and Marinella Abbate, researchers at the
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente
(ENEA Ð Centre for Research into New Technologies,                 3. Costs are reserved.
Energy and the Environment), established in Rome,
represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, Mariano Paolin              (1) OJ L 170, 28. 6. 1997, p. 3.
and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 39, rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and
Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for suspension of
operation, either wholly or in part, of the decision of the        Action brought on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier
Commission of 26 March 1997 establishing the main list                       against the European Court of Auditors
and the reserve list of proposed actions eligible for a                                    (Case T-170/97)
Community contribution under the MAST III programme
and, consequently, for suspension of operation of the                                        (98/C 7/51)
decision excluding the Posible programme Ð the President
of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                   (Language of the case: French)
26 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                           An action against the European Court of Auditors was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Communities on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier,
                                                                   residing in Lintgen (Luxembourg), represented by Jean-
2. The costs are reserved.                                         NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.


title: Case T-99/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/20

         Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)
   (Case T-99/13)
   2013/C 141/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2012 in Case R 1617/2011-1 by finding that the absolute ground for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — based on the bad faith of the proprietor of the Community trade mark at the time when the application was filed — and the relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the regulation, are made out;

               —

               In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court should consider the documents produced at the time of the appeal before the Board of Appeal inadmissible and should consider those documents essential for the purposes of granting the appeal, annul the contested decision on the ground of failure to have regard to the right to be heard and infringement of the rights of the defence and refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for a decision on the substance;

               —

               In any event, call upon OHIM to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the trade mark proprietor to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Camomilla’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 21, 24 and 28 — Community trade mark No 3 158 196

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Camomilla SpA

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-383/04: Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Erich Drazdansky against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/21

         Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Erich Drazdansky against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-383/04)
   (2004/C 314/53)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Erich Drazdansky, resident in Wiener Neustadt (Austria), represented by M. Kadlicz, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation of 23 July 2004 — R 1014/2001-2 so as to allow the appeal and refuse or reject the opposition;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of OHIM and require it to reach a fresh decision on the appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘Vitacan’ for goods in Class 29 (milk drinks etc.), Class 30 (cocoa or chocolate drinks) and Class 32 (fruit drinks etc.), application No 452 284

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Refusal to register the mark applied for

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of Case C-270/94

text:
?.. 9    95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 229/ 17
Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                                                C-75/93 ( ] )
2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                                            95/C 229/37 )
Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in
Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the
Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between                     By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European                     of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                Union                                  ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
                                                                       C-74/93 and C-75/93 : Commission of the European
                        ( Case C-245/95 P)                             Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported
                             95/C 229/35                               by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, European
                                                                       Parliament, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federal Republic
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                of Germany.
(Third Chamber extended composition ) in Joined Cases
T-l 63/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the               ( ] ) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas
Khan, acting as agents, with an address for service in                         Removal from the register of Case C-442/93 (*)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                                 95/C 229/38 )
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                       By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Court of
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,               from the register of Case C-442/93 ( reference for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance,                  de la Audiencia Nacional ( Madrid, Spain )): Criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Rafael Martin Calvo Martinicorena .
— order the Applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
that it :
  ( i ) held that a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping                 Removal from the register of Case C-208/94 (*)
        duties following a review initiated pursuant to
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/39 )
        Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic Regulation must
        establish injury within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
        the Basic Regulation;                                          By order of 19 May 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 or, in the alternative, it further erred in law in that it:            from the register of Case C-208/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
 ( ii ) held that the infringement of Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the
        Basic Regulation necessarily entailed the annulment of          f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
        the contested Regulation .
         Removal from the register of Case C-367/92 H                          Removal from the register of Case C-2 70/94 (*)
                            ( 95/C 229/36 )                                                         ( 95/C 229/40 )
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 By order of 18 May 1995 the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-367/92 : French Republic v.                from the register of Case C-270/94 : Commission of the
 Commission of the European Communities.                                European Communities v. Italian Republic .
  H OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .                                        (») OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Case T-514/09: Action brought on 31 December 2009 — De Post v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/38

         Action brought on 31 December 2009 — De Post v Commission
   (Case T-514/09)
   2010/C 51/73
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: De Post NV van publiek recht (Brussel, Belgium) (represented by: R. Martens and B. Schutyser, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union to award the contract referred to in the invitation to tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ (OJ 2009/S 176-253034) to ‘Entreprises des Postes et Télécommunications Luxembourg’ and not to the applicant, as notified to the latter on 17 December 2009;

               —

               in the event that, at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Publications Office would have already signed the contract with Entreprises des Postes et Télécommunications Luxembourg pursuant to invitation to tender No 10234, a declaration that this contract is null and void;

               —

               an award of damages as compensation for the loss that the applicant has incurred as a consequence of the contested decision, provisionally estimated at EUR 2 386 444,94, to be increased by the moratory and compound interest as from the date of the filing of this application;

               —

               an order that the European Commission pays the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the Publications Office’) of 17 December 2009, to award the contract referred to in the invitation to tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ (OJ 2009/S 176-253034), to Entreprises des Postes et Télécommunications Luxembourg (hereinafter ‘Post Luxembourg’) and, consequently, not to award the contract to the applicant and, on the other, compensation of an estimated amount of 2 386 444,94 EUR for the damages allegedly suffered by the applicant following the rejection of its tender.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, consisting of four parts.
   The first and only plea in law raised by the applicant points at the alleged infringement by the Publications Office of the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers contained in Article 15 TFEU and in Article 89 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (hereinafter ‘the Financial Regulation’) (1), to the infringement of the obligation to award the contract on the basis of an evaluation of the selection criteria contained in Article 100(1) of the Financial Regulation, to its failure to adequately state the reasons for its decision (breach of Article 296 TFEU) and to the several manifest errors of assessment it has allegedly made, thus invalidating its decision that the tender of Post Luxembourg, and not that of the applicant, is the economically the most advantageous tender.
   In the first part of the plea in law, the applicant claims that the Publications Office has failed to base its decision on an evaluation of the selection and award criteria, in breach of Article 100 (1) of the Financial Regulation.
   In the second part of the plea in law, the applicant argues that the Publications Office has applied various sub criteria in its evaluation of the tenders that were not contained in the tender specifications and has thus violated the principle of transparency as laid down in Article 15 TFEU and Article 89 pf the Financial Regulation.
   In the third part of its plea, the applicant claims that the Publications Office has applied the open-ended technical award criteria in an inconsistent manner, effectively removing all transparency from the evaluation process.
   In the fourth part of its plea, the applicant contends that the Publications Office, in violation of Articles 15, 296 TFUE, 89 of the Financial Regulation as well as the general procedural requirements of the duty to state reasons and of transparency, has not provided an adequate an unequivocal statement of reasons for its evaluation of the tenders, the motivation of the decision allegedly being contradictory and vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.
   Further, the applicant submits that since the contested decision is vitiated by breaches of European law, the Publications Office has committed a fault and is thus liable under Article 340 TFUE. In fact, the applicant claims that due to the decision to award the contract to Post Luxembourg instead of the applicant, the latter has incurred a serious loss, consisting of a chance to have the contract awarded to it and of all the expenses made by it relating to the preparation and the drafting of the tender, as well as in defending its position.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Action brought on 10 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-384/97)

text:
C 26/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.1.98
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Second Chamber)
                                                                     Ð declare that, by not establishing programmes, which
                     of 16 October 1997
                                                                         incorporate quality objectives and set deadlines for
in Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of                 their implementation, in order to reduce water
         Auditors of the European Communities (1)                        pollution caused by the 99 dangerous substances in the
                                                                         first indent of List II in the Annex to Council Directive
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)                  76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous
                         (98/C 26/02)                                    substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
                                                                         the Community (1) and, consequently, by not making
                                                                         the discharges which are made into its waters and are
                (Language of the case: Greek)                            liable to contain those substances subject to prior
                                                                         authorization from the authority which is to lay down
                                                                         the emission standards on the basis of quality
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           objectives set in the programmes, the Hellenic
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                         Treaty and Article 7 of the Directive,
In Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis, former
official of the Court of Auditors of the European                    Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Markos Papazissis, of the Thessalonica Bar, with an                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the applicant's
home, 4A, Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance           In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 189 of
of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of                       the EC Treaty, directives are binding, as to the result to be
28 February 1996 in Case T-294/94 Dimitriadis v. Court               achieved, upon each Member State to which they are
of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-151) seeking to              addressed. In accordance with the first paragraph of
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all
proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the European                 appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Christos                    ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the
Komninos and Paolo Giusta) Ð the Court (Second                       Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions
Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President of the                 of the Community.
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                      Under Article 7 of the Directive the Greek Republic had
Registrar, made an order on 16 October 1997, the                     to establish programmes in order to reduce pollution of its
operative part of which is as follows:                               waters by the substances laid down by the Directive;
                                                                     however, it had failed to give notice of such programmes
                                                                     up until the time when the Commission lodged this
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                     application.
2. The appellant is odered to pay the costs.                         (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                     Gerichtshof by order of that court of 4 November 1997 in
                                                                     the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
Action brought on 10 November 1997 by the Commission                 Landesregierung v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                                                  Neuner
                           Republic
                                                                                (Case C-395/97)
                       (Case C-384/97)
                                                                                (98/C 26/04)
                         (98/C 26/03)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by an order of the Oberster
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 4 November
on 10 November 1997 by the Commission of the                         1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-                   25 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service           Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,              v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin Neuner on the
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                      following question:


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98: Schiocchet v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 - International carriage of passengers by coach and bus - Inadmissibility)

text:
28.8.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 246/31
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Marie
                                                                          Wolfcarius) — applications for annulment of the decision of
                        of 16 April 1999                                  the Commission to take no action on the complaints lodged
                                                                          by the applicant on 4 and 5 December 1996 respectively,
                                                                          criticising the unfair competition to which it was allegedly
in Case T-142/98: Image Création SA v Commission of                       being subjected — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                the European Communities (1)                              composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M.
                                                                          Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 21 May
(Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested                       1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
        measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                                                                          1. Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 are joined for the purposes of
                        (1999/C 246/62)                                        the order;
                                                                          2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          3. There is no need to rule on the application of the Council for
In Case T-142/98: Image Création SA, established in Brussels,                  leave to intervene;
represented by Georges Vandersanden, Eric Gillet and Laure
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 4. The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue                     incurred by the Commission;
de Cessange, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Christina Tufvesson and Bernard Mongin) — appli-                 5. The Council, as applicant for leave to intervene, is to bear its own
cation for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10                   costs.
June 1998 fixing in the sum of ECU 135 548 the amount
owed by the applicant in respect of the project ‘Troisième
contrat Europuzzle, broadcasting in 4 Eastern European                    (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
countries, 52 clips’ and, in so far as may be necessary, for
annulment of the measures implementing that decision — the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.
Potocki, President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 April 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. There is no longer any need to give a decision on the application;     ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 26 February 1999
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                          in Case T-203/98 R: Yannis Tzikis v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                          (Interlocutory proceedings — Suspension of operation of a
                                                                          measure — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (1999/C 246/64)
                        of 21 May 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98: Schiocchet v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-203/98 R: Yannis Tzikis, an official of the Com-
(Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Regulation                   mission of the European Communities, residing at Boortmeer-
(EEC) No 684/92 — International carriage of passengers by                 beek (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and
              coach and bus — Inadmissibility)                            Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue
                                                                          de Cessange, v Commission of the European Communities
                        (1999/C 246/63)                                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application
                                                                          for suspension of operation of the decision of 27 October
                                                                          1998 by which the appointing authority imposed on the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post
                                                                          without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement
In Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98: Schiocchet, estab-                 pension as provided for in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff
lished at Beuvillers (France), represented by Pascal Barbier, of          Regulations of officials of the European Communities — the
the Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg             President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 26
at the office of Viva Vacances, 33 Rue de Strasbourg, v                   February 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-191/08: Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-191/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/74)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.