title: Case T-288/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/20

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission
   (Case T-288/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Energiewerke Nord GmbH (Rubenow, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C(2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Energiewerke Nord GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case F-22/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Conticchio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Calculation of pension rights — Classification by step — Preliminary plea of illegality — Whether admissible)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Conticchio v Commission
   (Case F-22/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Calculation of pension rights - Classification by step - Preliminary plea of illegality - Whether admissible)
   2012/C 287/75
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosella Conticchio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Tortora, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application by Ms Conticchio for annulment of the decision relating to the grant and payment of her pension rights.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action brought by Ms Conticchio is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 31.


title: Case T-618/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/36

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)
   (Case T-618/13)
   2014/C 45/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: T. Heydn, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11September 2013 given in Case R 1369/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AAVA CORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 712 811

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 551 626 of the word mark ‘JAVA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 45; well-known trade mark ‘JAVA’ in all Member States of the European Union for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-291/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany) lodged on 12 June 2012 — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany) lodged on 12 June 2012 — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum
   (Case C-291/12)
   2012/C 273/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michael Schwarz

      Defendant: Stadt Bochum

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (1) of 13 December 2004, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, valid?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1; corrected version: OJ 2009 L 188, p. 127).


title: Action brought on 3 December 1996 by Christine Dalby against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-198/96)

text:
No C 54/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 2 . 97
In support of their claims, the applicants allege breach of               for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne
Article 39 of the EC Treaty read in conjunction with                      Korn , 21 , rue de Nassau .
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 (') on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of                The applicant claims that the Court should :
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and with
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 ( 4 ) on the                      — annul the decision classifying her in grade A7, of
registration of geographical indications and designations                       which she was notified by a note dated 5 January
of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of                        1996 ,
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .
                                                                          — annul the decision rejecting her administrative
In this connection , according to the applicants , while                        complaint, of which she was notified by a note dated
Parmigiano Reggiano was included in the list of                                 1 August 1996 , received on 3 September 1996 ,
registrations under Regulation No 2081 /92 ('), no
designation of German cheese was registered under the                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, notice of
name 'Parmesan ', since such a designation must be                              competition COM/T/A/94, inasmuch as it provides
considered to be unlawful if it is used to indicate cheese                      that members of the temporary staff recruited as
produced outside the area of protection supervised by the                       officials are to be classified , subject to certain
Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano . On the                            conditions , in the grade which they occupied at the
other hand, they claim that the derogation provided for by                      time when the list of suitable candidates was drawn
Article 13 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 cannot                       up ,
apply to the German cheeses listed in the contested
decision, because the products covered by the protective                  — order the Commission to pay the costs .
term must have been marketed legally for at least five
years before the date of publication of Regulation ( EEC )                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 2081 /92 . There exists a bilateral agreement between
Italy and Germany as a result of which the fundamental                    The applicant, an official in grade A7, step 6 , contests the
condition that the products referred to in Article 13 ( 2 ) of            decision of the Commission expressly refusing her
Regulation No 2081 /92 must have been lawfully marketed                   appointment to grade A6 .
is not satisfied . On the basis of that agreement, Germany
undertook to recognize and protect various typical                        She pleads infringement of the second sentence of the
designations of traditional Italian products , including                  second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
Parmigiano Reggiano .                                                     claiming that the contested decision contained no
                                                                          statement of the grounds on which is was based . The
The applicants also claim that the Commission failed to                   applicant further considers that the Commission
perform its duties under Article 155 of the EC Treaty. In                 committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to
that connection they consider that not only did the                       regard her professional and academic qualifications as
defendant fail to take steps to prevent a Member State                    exceptional , so as to allow the application of Article 31
from acting in breach of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Regulation                   ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations, and maintains that there has
( EEC ) No 2081 /92 , but it even ratified that breach by                 been a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare
                                                                          and interests of officials .
recognizing as lawful the designation of a cheese which
was on the contrary prohibited , since such designation is
reserved for a product covered by Community protection .
(')   OJ No  L 230,  11 . 9.   1996 , p. 12 .
(2)   OJ No  L 268 , 14 . 9.   1992 , p. 1.
O     OJ No  L 208 , 24 . 7.   1992 , p. 1.                               Action brought on 4 December 1996 by Laboratoires
(4 )  OJ No  L 148 , 21 . 6.   1996 , p. 1.                               Pharmaceutiques Bergadem SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil
                                                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T- 199/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/47 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 3 December 1996 by Christine Dalby
     against the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European
                             ( Case T-198/96 )                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 December
                                ( 97/C 54/46 )
                                                                          1996 by Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergadem SA, the
                                                                          registered office of which is at Rungis ( France ), in the
                  (Language of the case: French)                          person of Jacqueline Cariven, its administrator appointed
                                                                          by judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce ( Commercial
An action against the Commission of the European                          Court ), Creteil , of 5 October 1995 , and Jean-Jacques
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Goupil , residing at Chevreuse ( France ), represented by
Instance of the European Communities on 3 December                        Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
1996 by Christine Dalby, residing in Brussels, represented                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
bv Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address                  31 Grand-Rue .


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-347/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Insurance — Third non-life insurance directive — Bonus-malus system)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 7 September 2004
   in Case C-347/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Insurance - Third non-life insurance directive - Bonus-malus system)
   (2004/C 262/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-347/02, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 September 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Tufvesson and J.-F. Pasquier) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, P. Boussaroque and C. Mercier) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts,, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-271/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek
   (Case C-271/17)
   (2017/C 277/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are proceedings

                           —

                           in which the court in the issuing Member State decides to combine separate custodial sentences which had previously been imposed on the person concerned by a final judgment into one single custodial sentence, and/or to change an aggregate custodial sentence which had previously been imposed on the person concerned by a final judgment and

                           —

                           in which that court no longer examines the question of guilt,

                     such as the proceedings which led to the cumulative sentence of 25 March 2014, a ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in the introductory subparagraph of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? (1)

               2.

               Can the executing judicial authority:

                           —

                           in a case where the requested person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision,

                           —

                           but where the issuing judicial authority has not, either in the EAW [European Arrest Warrant] or in the supplementary information requested pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, provided information about the applicability of one or more of the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in accordance with the wording of one or more of the categories of point 3 of paragraph (d) of the EAW form,

                     for those very reasons conclude that none of the conditions of Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been satisfied and for those very reasons refuse to execute the EAW?

               3.

               Are appeal proceedings

                           —

                           in which there has been an examination of the merits and

                           —

                           which resulted in the passing of a (new) sentence on the person concerned and/or the confirmation of the sentence handed down at first instance,

                           —

                           where the EAW concerns the execution of that sentence,

                     the ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case C-469/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Verona (Italy)) — Shamim Tahir v Ministero dell’Interno and Questura di Verona (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2003/109/EC — Articles 2, 4(1), 7(1) and 13 — ‘Long-term resident’s EU residence permit’  — Terms for conferring long-term resident status — Legal and continuous residence in the host Member State for five years prior to the submission of the permit application — Person with family connections to the long-term resident — More favourable national provisions — Effects)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/22

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Verona (Italy)) — Shamim Tahir v Ministero dell’Interno and Questura di Verona
   (Case C-469/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2003/109/EC - Articles 2, 4(1), 7(1) and 13 - ‘Long-term resident’s EU residence permit’ - Terms for conferring long-term resident status - Legal and continuous residence in the host Member State for five years prior to the submission of the permit application - Person with family connections to the long-term resident - More favourable national provisions - Effects))
   2014/C 315/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Verona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shamim Tahir

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno and Questura di Verona

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, as amended by Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that family members, as defined in Article 2(e) of that directive, of a person who has already acquired long-term resident status may not be exempted from the condition laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive, under which, in order to obtain that status, a third-country national must have resided legally and continuously in the Member State concerned for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application.

               2.

               Article 13 of Directive 2003/109, as amended by Directive 2011/51, must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to issue family members, as defined in Article 2(e) of that directive, with long-term residents’ EU residence permits on terms more favourable than those laid down by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


C 122/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 29.4.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-322/99 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/66)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/67)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 February 2000 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 22 February 2000 the President of the Fifth
Case T-322/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-341/99: Francisco Javier Ramon Galar v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-388/99 P: Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 20/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communi-                     3. Does the question whether the treatment as a whole or
ties, in which the Commission was requested to produce a                       only a proportion thereof involved in-patient care affect
certified true copy of certain minutes.                                        the answers to these questions?
                                                                          (1) — To ensure that provision of medical care by doctors and in
By order of 4 October 1999, the Court of Justice (Third                           hospitals is balanced and accessible to all.
Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and                  — To maintain the principle of benefits in kind applied in the
ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Netherlands.
                                                                              — To ensure the financial equilibrium of the Netherlands social
                                                                                security scheme.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de
                                                                          Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
                                                                          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                   European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in                    cova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European
the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge                                                      Union
Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and
2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschap-
                  pij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen                                                      (Case C-388/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/16)
                          (Case C-385/99)
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2000/C 20/15)                                 Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and
                                                                          31 Others and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia, represented by
European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van                    Vı́ctor M. Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, Creus Carreras, of the
Beroep [Higher Social Security Court] of 6 October 1999,                  Santiago de Compostela Bar, with an address for service at the
received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1999, for a                  Fundación Galicia-Europa, Avenue Milcamps 105 B, 1030
preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Fauré against           Brussels.
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen
U.A. and 2. E.E.M. van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaat-              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
schappij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen on the following questions:
                                                                          1) Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July
                                                                               1999 in Case T-194/95 by reason of all or any of the
1. Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 49                    defects indicated and draw from the setting aside of that
     and 50 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that in principle                 order all legal consequences, either giving judgment on the
     a provision such as Article 9(4) of the Ziekenfondswet                    substance or referring the matter back to the Court of First
     [Law on Health Insurance], read in conjunction with                       Instance;
     Article 1 of the Regeling hulp in het buitenland zieken-
     fondsverzekering [Regulation on health care abroad under             2) Order the defendant before the Court of First Instance of
     the sickness insurance rules], is incompatible therewith in               the European Communities to pay the costs, at the same
     so far as it stipulates that in order to assert his entitlement           time giving a decision on the order for costs made against
     to benefits a person insured with a health insurance fund                 the defendant in the matter at first instance in the event of
     requires the prior authorisation of that fund to seek                     the present appeal being upheld wholly or in part.
     treatment from a person or establishment outside the
     Netherlands with whom or which the health insurance
     fund has not concluded an agreement?                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — Infringement of Community law involving misapplication
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, do              and misinterpretation of Article 230 (previously 173) as
     the objectives of the Netherlands system of benefits in kind              regards rejection of the allegation of misuse of powers
     referred to above (1) constitute an overriding reason in the              vitiating the contested regulation since there is a total
     general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the               divergence between the ostensible aim thereof and the aim
     fundamental principle of freedom to provide services?                     really pursued by its adoption.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/9
— The remaining pleas and main arguments are analogous to               Nor can the scheme and purpose of the provisions relied on
      those put forward in Case C-300/99 p (1).                         be used to deny the plaintiff a claim for damages. If there is no
                                                                        decision, the appellant does not know what action, if any, the
                                                                        decision-making body is taking. The decisive factor is that
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 12.                                      silence on the part of that body should not be interpreted as a
                                                                        refusal. Silence is a legal nullity, of no commercial-law or
                                                                        constitutional-law significance as such. The purpose of the
                                                                        action for failure to act is merely to provide the appellant with
                                                                        an additional remedy should it be appropriate to achieve an
                                                                        immediate resolution of the dispute. However, the injured
                                                                        party cannot thereby lose the possibility of interrupting the
                                                                        limitation period. It is not within his control whether or not
                                                                        the body being challenged acts speedily.
Appeal brought on 15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri
S.p.A against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
European Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli
Murri SpA and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                        (Case C-399/99 P)
                          (2000/C 20/17)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 October 1999 by the Italian
An appeal against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the                Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ties
Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli Murri SpA
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                        (Case C-400/99)
15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri SpA, represented by
Karl-Gustav von Luschka, Chieming, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach                                          (2000/C 20/18)
8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 18 October 1999 by the Commission of the
I.    Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in Case        European Communities, represented by Umberto Leanza,
      T-106/98 (1) of 4 August 1999 and order the respondent            assisted by Piero Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
      to pay the appellant USD 7 923 791 plus 10 % interest as          address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
      from 25 September 1991;                                           Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s letter of 6 August 1999 (1) to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              extent necessary;
Infringement of Community law. The appellant complains that             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the scope of the
second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 232 EC). The period laid down in the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
second paragraph of Article 175 is not eliminatory in regard
to claims for compensation for damage. Article 43 of the EC
Statute of the Court of Justice provides that the period laid           The Italian Republic contests the letter of 6 August 1999 on
down in the second paragraph of Article 175 is to apply only            the following grounds:
‘where appropriate’. The same is true of the wording of the
second paragraph of Article 175 itself, which merely permits,
but does not require, an action for failure to act to be brought        — breach of the principle of legal certainty and the rules on
(‘... the action may be brought ...’). The provision does not                transparency with regard to Regulation No 659/99/EC (2);
establish any connection between non-compliance with the
period for bringing an action for failure to act and loss or            — breach of the right to be heard and rights of the defence and
limitation of the right to bring a claim for damages.                        infringement of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 659/99/EC;


title: Case T-352/03: Action brought on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/38                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.1.2004
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary General of the
                         (Case T-352/03)                                        Council of 29 November 2002 not to include her name
                                                                                on the list of officials promoted to Grade C 2 in the 2002
                          (2004/C 7/69)                                         promotions procedure;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
                                                                          In support of her application, the applicant relies on a plea of
                                                                          breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by
—     award damages of 5 000 euros to the applicant as                    considering comparative merits without taking account of the
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                differences in marking between the different departments of
      him as a result of the delay in drawing up the final staff          the institution.
      report (delay in placing a document in his personal file)
      in respect of the period 1999-2001;
—     make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order
      the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      them.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggi-
                                                                                menti against the European Parliament
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the general instructions implementing Article 43 of the                                          (Case T-354/03)
Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of sound adminis-
tration and failure to fulfil the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials. The applicant also claims to have suffered                                     (2004/C 7/71)
non-material damage as a result and that, moreover, he was
the victim of harassment aimed at curtailing his freedom of
association.                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities on 20 October 2003 against the
Action brought on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen                    European Parliament by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in
         against the Council of the European Union                        Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by Claudine
                                                                          Junion, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-353/03)
                          (2004/C 7/70)                                   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 17 July
                                                                                2003 in so far as it denies the applicant payment of travel
                                                                                expenses as from 6 August 1999;
An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          —     order the European Parliament to pay the applicant travel
on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen, residing in Villers-
                                                                                expenses for her daughter as from 6 August 1999;
la-Ville (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-815/16: Action brought on 22 November 2016 — For Tune v EUIPO — Simplicity trade (opus AETERNATUM)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/55

         Action brought on 22 November 2016 — For Tune v EUIPO — Simplicity trade (opus AETERNATUM)
   (Case T-815/16)
   (2017/C 014/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland) (represented by: K. Popławska, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simplicity trade GmbH (Oelde, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘opus AETERNATUM’ — Application for registration No 11 024 296

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2016 in Case R 152/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-126/09: Action brought on 3 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/31

         Action brought on 3 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-126/09)
   2009/C 141/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2003/59/EC expired on 9 September 2006. At the time the present action was brought, the defendant had still not adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified those measures to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4.


               10.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/6

         Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-21/15)
   (2015/C 410/05)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 28 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 28 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-467/13P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2013 in Case T-406/08 ICF v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/8

         Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2013 in Case T-406/08 ICF v Commission
   (Case C-467/13P)
   2013/C 336/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) (represented by: P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 June 2013 in Case T-406/08 Industries Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) v European Commission and, if the Court considers that it has all the information at its disposal necessary in order itself to give final judgment on the substance of the case, annul the fine of EUR 1 700 000 imposed on ICF in the contested decision or, at least, reduce the amount of that fine;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on three grounds.
   By its first ground, the applicant maintains that the General Court erred in law, or at least was guilty of a substantive inaccuracy in its finding of the facts, or distorted the facts in its assessment thereof, when holding that the fact that the Commission based the contested decision on documents not referred to in the statement of objections did not constitute an infringement of the rights of the defence or of Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

   The appellant also considers that the General Court erred in law when holding that the reduction by the Commission of the number of persons considered to have committed an infringement made between the statement of objections and the adoption of the contested decision did not infringe the appellant's interests or its rights of the defence, given that the appellant did not have the opportunity to comment on that reduction before adoption of the contested decision.
   By its second ground, the appellant criticises the General Court for having infringed Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The General Court misinterpreted paragraph 18 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines when it interpreted the expression ‘the total value of the sales of the goods or services to which the infringement relates’ as covering only the total value of the sales of the undertakings which participated in the infringement and not as the total value of sales on that market.
   The appellant also complains that the General Court failed to comply with its duty to state reasons by not responding in a relevant or adequate way to its argument to the effect that the Commission departed from its decision-making practice when fixing the amount of the fine.
   By its third ground, the appellant considers that the length of the proceedings before the General Court was excessive, and therefore in breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, given that in its view the case was a straightforward one involving few documents. Consequently, the appellant seeks, in application of the Baustahlgewebe v Commission
       (2) case-law, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it.
   Finally, the appellant accuses the General Court of having infringed Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The General Court did not exercise its unlimited jurisdiction correctly, having failed to evaluate itself or explain why, in the present case, the fine imposed was justified. In that regard, the appellant considers that the General Court did not reply to the various arguments raised by it in the proceedings before the General Court.

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

      (2)  Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417.


title: Case T-405/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/36

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)
   (Case T-405/16)
   (2017/C 014/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: The Regents of the University of California (Riverside, California, United States of America) (represented by: J. Muñoz-Delgado Mérida, S. Poza Martínez, M. Esteve Sanz y J. Lissen Arbeloa, abogados)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nador Cott Protection SARL (Saint-Raphaël, France) and Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Valencia, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before CPVO

      Proprietor of the plant variety right at issue: Applicant

      Community Plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 38924, variety denomination: Tang Gold, species: Citrus reticulata Bianco

      Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 29 April 2016 in Case A006/2014

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Confer on the variety Nadorcott, with regard to characteristic No 68 of Protocol CPVO-TP 201/2, the level of expression ‘very high’ with a mark of 9 or, in the alternative, the level of expression ‘high’ with a mark of 7, entering that classification on the Report on the Differences with Similar Varieties, which form part of the official description of the variety Tang Gold;

               —

               Recognise the existence of manifest differences between the varieties Tang Gold and Nardocott as regards characteristics Nos 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 37, 50, 60 and 65 of Protocol CPVO-TP 201/2, by making a declaration to that effect and granting the amendment of the Report on the Differences with Similar Varieties, which forms part of the official description of the variety Tang Gold, in such a way as to include those differences in the report.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 57, 62, 67, 75 and 81 of Regulation No 2100/94.

               —

               Infringement of Article 49 of Regulation No 874/09.

               —

               Misinterpretation of the Report of the IVIA entitled ‘Extent of the reduction of the seed content through induced mutagenesis’.

               —

               Characteristic No 68 does not depend on environmental conditions.

               —

               The data provided by UCR on the number of seeds contained in the Nadorcott variety is comparable.


title: Case T-121/14: Action brought on 18 February 2014 — PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/60

         Action brought on 18 February 2014 — PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council
   (Case T-121/14)
   2014/C 112/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it imposes and anti-dumping duty on the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement does not allow to adjust costs for the simple reason that these are lower than in other markets or are ‘distorted’ due to government intervention. Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51; hereafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’) should therefore be ruled inapplicable insofar as it provides for such a possibility to adjust costs.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the adjustment to the costs of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) in the present case constitutes a violation of Article 2 (5) of the basic Regulation. More specifically, the applicant submits the following claims:

                           —

                           The necessary evidence on the basis of which it was concluded that the CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted is missing and the Council and the European Commission (hereafter ‘the Institutions’) committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted;

                           —

                           By using the reference export price (‘HPE’) to adjust the costs, the Institutions did not adjust the costs on ‘a reasonable basis’ as mandated by Article 2 (5) of the basic Regulation and/or on the basis of ‘sources which are unaffected by such distortions’; and

                           —

                           Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not allow to adjust costs in situations in which prices are simply and allegedly ‘low’.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant's CPO purchase prices from related parties are distorted. More specifically, the Institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant's CPO purchase prices from related companies were not at arm's length.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in determining the reasonable profit margin, the Council did not comply with the legal obligation contained in Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. This Article requires that the amount of reasonable profit cannot exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Institutions, by refusing to make an appropriate adjustment on account of a price premium associated with the certification of compliance with RED, have manifestly misstated the facts and violated Articles 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the basic Regulation because the applicant's export prices were not objectively compared with the Union industry's target price. In addition, by refusing to make the necessary adjustment for the RED certification, the Institutions impermissibly discriminated against the applicant as compared to other Indonesian producers.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Institutions breached Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation and committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that Double Counting Regulations did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have failed to consider information and arguments submitted by the applicant in the course of the investigation. By doing so, they have not only breached their obligation of due diligence and proper administration by not carefully and impartially examining all relevant evidence before them but also failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 20 (5) of the basic Regulation as well as with the obligation to provide reasons as mandated by Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case C-535/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 21 October 2016 — Michael Tibor Bachman v FAER IFN SA

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 21 October 2016 — Michael Tibor Bachman v FAER IFN SA
   (Case C-535/16)
   (2017/C 038/09)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Specializat Mureș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michael Tibor Bachman

      Defendant: FAER IFN SA

      Question referred

   Must Article 2([b]) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) which defines the term ‘consumer’, be interpreted as covering also a natural person who, by means of a novation agreement, has undertaken to repay to a commercial operator, which is a professional lending institution, loans originally granted to a company for purposes inherent in that company’s business activity, that is to say, for investment in the business of the carriage of goods by road, in the case where [that] natural person has no evident link with that company but acted in that way on the basis of links, outside his trade, business or profession, with the person who controlled the company which received the original loans and also with the persons who signed contracts ancillary to the original loan contracts (contracts of guarantee, contracts providing immovable property as security/mortgages)?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2004 in Joined Cases T-314/03 and T-378/03: Musée Grévin SA v Commission of the European Communities (PHARE/JOP Programme — Joint venture project in Poland — Community financing — Claim for reimbursement of the full amount paid — Arbitration clause — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/24

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 May 2004
   in Joined Cases T-314/03 and T-378/03: Musée Grévin SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (PHARE/JOP Programme - Joint venture project in Poland - Community financing - Claim for reimbursement of the full amount paid - Arbitration clause - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 239/52)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases T-314/03 and T-378/03: Musée Grévin SA, established in Paris, (France), represented by B. Geneste and O. Davidson, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Sack and G. Boudot) — application for annulment of the letters of the Commission of 8 July and 30 September 2003 to Crédit Lyonnais seeking to recover the funds paid to the applicant by way of subsidies granted in the context of the JOP programme — Facilité 2 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The applications are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 275.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 March 1996 in the case of Finanzamt Osnabrück-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst (Case C-141/96)

text:
 No C 180/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 6 . 96
 Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Paris, of 23 February                   Communities on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 25 April               European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Scotch                Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
 Whisky Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
 Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
 Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
 Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai ) on the following                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
 question:
                                                                            1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
 Having regard to European rules, in particular Article 5 of                      adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 i 1 ),                      Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 ), the Federal Republic of
 may the generic term 'whisky' be included in the trade name                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 of spirit drinks consisting entirely of whisky diluted with                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 water, so that the alcoholic strength by volume is less than
 40° ?
                                                                           2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 C ) OJ No L 160, 12 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments .
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                           in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ), the time limit for transposition expired
 Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  on 1 January 1994 .
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                  Germany                                  (') OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-137/96 )                              ( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .
                               ( 96/C 180/52 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities on 24 April 1 996 by the Commission of the
 European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 March 1996 in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the               the case of Finanzamt Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.                                                            Langhorst
                                                                                Case C-141 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                            ( 96/C 180/54 )
 1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 91 /414/EEC ('), the Federal Republic of                 European Communities by an order of the Fifth Senate of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC          the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 14 March
       Treaty and under that Directive;                                    1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
                                                                           1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst on the following
                                                                          questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                  1 . Is it permissible under Article 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ); the time limit for transposition expired                 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
on 27 July 1993 .                                                                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                to turnover taxes (the Sixth Directive ) ( J ) for a credit
(M OJ No L 230 , 1991 , p . 1 .                                                  note within the meaning of paragraph 14 ( 5 ) of the
( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .                                      Umsatzsteuergesetz ( Law on turnover tax) 1980 to be
                                                                                regarded as an invoice or other document serving as
                                                                                invoice ( Article 21 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Directive )?
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  2 . If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative : Is it
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                             permissible under Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive
                                  Germany                                        for a person who accepts a credit note showing a higher
                                                                                amount of tax than that owed by reason of taxable
                           ( Case C- 1 3 8/96 )                                  transactions, and does not contradict in that respect the
                              ( 96/C 180/53 )                                    mention of tax in the credit note, to be regarded as a
                                                                                person who mentions value-added tax on an invoice or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            other document serving as invoice and is therefore liable
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              to pay that value added tax ?
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 180/25
3 . Can the recipient of a credit note, in the circumstances          Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal
     set out in Question 2, rely on Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the      Customs Office ) Mannheim on the following question :
     Sixth Directive if the value-added tax mentioned in the
     credit note is claimed from him as a tax debt to the             How is subheading 0904 20 of the Common Customs Tariff
     extent of the difference between the tax mentioned and           — combined nomenclature 1989 and 1990 — to be
     the tax owed by reason of taxable transactions ?                 interpreted ? Does the term 'sonst zerkleinert' used therein
                                                                      signify merely a fineness similar to the 'gemahlen' (crushed )
(!) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                       product, or does it also cover a product cut into pieces, such
                                                                      as a product cut into pieces measuring between 4 and
                                                                      8 mm ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
the case of Hauptzollamt Miinchen v. Wacker Werke                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail
                        GmbH & Co . KG                                de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in
                                                                          the case of Office National des Pensions v. Cirotti
                         ( Case C-142/96 )
                                                                                Case C- 1 44/96 )
                           ( 96/C 180/55 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/57)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of            European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
7 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on             Travail de Bruxelles ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) of
29 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                25 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Hauptzollamt Miinchen ( Principal Customs Office,                     3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office
Munich ) v . Wacker Werke GmbH & Co . KG on the                       National des Pensions ( National Pensions Office ) v. Cirotti
following questions:                                                  on the following question :
1 . Is the second alternative provided for in the second              Must     Articles     46     and   51     of   Regulation    ( EEC )
     subparagraph of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation           No 1408/71 (*) be interpreted as applying in the event of an
     ( EEC ) No 2473/86 of 24 July 1986 on outward                    invalidity benefit, calculated under the legislation of one
     processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 212 , 1986 ,            Member State, overlapping with an old-age benefit,
     p . 1 ) to be interpreted as meaning that a method of            calculated under the legislation of another Member State,
     determining processing costs is reasonable only if the           that grants a person a share of the employed person's
     resulting value of the temporary export goods                    old-age benefit payable to his or her spouse from whom that
     corresponds approximately to the purchase price paid             person is living apart, even if this would give migrant
     by the holder of an outward processing authorization or          workers an advantage over non-migrant workers, when
     to the production costs ?                                        Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Regulation provides for equal treatment
                                                                      of all nationals of the Member States ?
2 . If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can
     reference be made to the purchase price for the inputs           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
     inclusive of uplifts paid by the processor to the holder of
     an outward processing authorization in determining the
     processing costs, and does that apply equally where
     there is a tariff anomaly resulting in a higher rate of duty
     for the unprocessed goods than for the compensating              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     products ?                                                       Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       11 April 1996 in the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/58 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v.                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                    Hauptzollamt Mannheim                             Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
                         ( Case C-143/96 )                            Civil Section ) of 11 April 1996 which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 7 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
                            ( 96/C 180/56                             the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and Amministrazione delle
                                                                      Finanze on the same questions as in Joined Cases C-47/95
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                and Others ( 1 ).
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March               (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Leonhard


title: Case T-110/07: Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Siemens v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/26

         Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Siemens v Commission
   (Case T-110/07)
   (2007/C 140/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented by I. Brinker, T. Loest and C. Steinle, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, annul the Commission's decision of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear) in so far as it affects the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article 2(m) of the decision;

               —

               in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear. In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a set of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-isolated switchgear sector.
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its application.
   First, the Commission is criticised for failing to demonstrate and prove the alleged infringements specifically and in detail. In particular, the Commission did not demonstrate and prove the effects of the alleged infringement on the common market and the EEA during the first phase of the alleged infringement up to 1999.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly assumed that there was a single continuous infringement and wrongly determined the duration of the infringement. According to the applicant, the Commission was unable to prove that the applicant had been involved in the alleged infringement after 22 April 1999. Furthermore, there was a breach of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), since, in the applicant's view, the limitation period had expired with respect to its participation in the alleged infringement during the first phase up to 1999.
   Finally, the applicant complains of serious errors of law of the Commission in assessing the fine. It is submitted, for instance, in this respect that the Commission misassessed the seriousness and duration of the infringement and manifestly applied an excessive ‘deterrent multiplier’ to the applicant. In addition, the Commission wrongly found that the applicant had played a leading part and wrongly failed to take into account the applicant's cooperation with the Commission.

      (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 L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).


title: Case T-732/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/16

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission
   (Case T-732/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Environment - Consumer protection - Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2016/C 175/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa); ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City); and ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Crespi, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  2 December 2005  in Case C-117/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Landes Oberösterreich in Manfred Seidl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 43 EC — Establishment of a driving school)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/14

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 2 December 2005
   in Case C-117/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Landes Oberösterreich in Manfred Seidl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 43 EC - Establishment of a driving school)
   (2006/C 60/30)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-117/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria), made by decision of 4 March 2005, received at the Court on 10 March 2005, in the proceedings between Manfred Seidl and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and J. Klucka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 2 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 43 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which prohibits the issue of a driving-school permit to a person who already holds a permit for the same purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.2005


title: Case F-112/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/27

         Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-112/11)
   2012/C 6/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months in that those statements apply a correction coefficient of 92.3 on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010, while preserving the effect of those statements until the adoption of fresh statements applying a lawful correction coefficient;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 providing a negative response to complaint 328/11 lodged by the applicant in so far as that decision refuses, inter alia, to grant the applicant access to detailed statistical data concerning economic parity between Brussels and Varese in respect of a number of basic headings, including electricity, gas, solid and liquid heating fuel, health and accommodation;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-169/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 25 March 1999 in the case of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG against Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

text:
C 188/24              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-              on 14 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sanofi
shof by order of that court of 25 March 1999 in the case              Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne,
of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG against Zentrale                    on the validity, in the light of the principle of proportionality,
        zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.                    of Council Decision 89/847/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising
                                                                      the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the
                                                                      second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Direc-
                        (Case C-169/99)                               tive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                      Member States relating to turnover taxes. (1)
                        (1999/C 188/53)
                                                                      (1) OJ L 239, p. 21.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) — First Civil Chamber of 25 March
1999, received at the Court Registry on 5 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH &
Co. KG against Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbew-
erbs e.V. on the following question:                                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/55)
Is the term ‘practical reasons’ in the second sentence of
Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the                By order of 22 March 1999 the President of the Court of
approximation of the laws of the Member State relating to             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
cosmetic products (1) to be interpreted as also permitting the        from the register of Case C-25/98: (reference for a preliminary
inclusion of prescribed warnings in several languages, where          ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Santiago de Compost-
the manufacturer or marketer of cosmetic products considers           ela): Dorinda Teresa López Tourı́s v Instituto Nacional de
it desirable on economic grounds and to enhance the market-           Empleo (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
ability of the products in the Community, if as a result the full     (INSS).
warning appears in a clearly legible format on an enclosed
leaflet only, with the packaging and container simply fur-
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
nishing abbreviated information for lack of space? Specifically,
is it permissible for the packaging and container to carry not
the full warning but only abbreviated information where a
company, for the reasons given above, considers it desirable
to market its products in a uniform getup in the languages of
the nine different countries where the product is sold (which
include eight EU Member States)?
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-32/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/56)
( 1) (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169) as amended by Council Directive
     88/667/EEC (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46).                               By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-32/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth
Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 3 Decem-
ber 1998 in the case of Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/98 (1)
             des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne
                                                                                (1999/C 188/57)
                        (Case C-181/99)                               By order of 15 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (1999/C 188/54)                               from the register of Case C-227/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Ireland.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-
stratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth Chamber), France,
of 3 December 1998, which was received at the Court Registry


title: Case C-64/04Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/20

         Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
   (Case C-64/04)
   (2004/C 94/42)
   An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, acting as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the United Kingdom, by having failed to withdraw the fishing licences of the fishing vessels known as CLEOPATRA and OCEAN QUEST after their permanent transfer to Argentina, has breached Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 3690/93 (1) of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences;

               —

               order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Following the transfer of two fishing vessels to Argentina the United Kingdom failed to withdraw the fishing licences for those vessels. The aforementioned licences have been re-used for other vessels.
   The Commission takes the view that the permanent transfer of a vessel to Argentina can be equated with permanent withdrawal, as referred to in article 5 of Regulation 3690/93. It therefore submits that the United Kingdom has contravened the obligation incumbent upon it, laid down in the aforementioned article, to withdraw the fishing licences of vessels which are subject to definitive withdrawal from fishing activities.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 341, p. 93


title: Case T-589/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PAGINE GIALLE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — No signs or indications which have become customary — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE)
   (Case T-589/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PAGINE GIALLE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - No signs or indications which have become customary - Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 9/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Phonebook of the World (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seat Pagine Gialle SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2011 (Case R 1541/2010-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Phonebook of the World and Seat Pagine Gialle SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Phonebook of the World to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.