title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2002 in Case T-209/00, Frank Lamberts v European Ombudsman (Action for damages — Admissibility — Non-contractual liability — European Ombudsman — Conduct of Ombudsman in dealing with a complaint)

text:
13.7.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/29
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1.    Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/985/EC of
                                                                               21 December 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                               Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/33.218 — Far Eastern Freight
                       28 February 2002                                        Conference) in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicants;
                                                                         2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
in Case T-86/95: Compagnie générale maritime v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                        3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay four
                                                                               fifths of those incurred by the Commission and four fifths of
                                                                               those incurred by the ECTU, including those relating to the
(Competition — Liner conferences — Intermodal transport                        application for interim measures;
— Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Scope — Block
exemption — Regulation No 1017/68 — Individual exemp-                    4.    Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs,
                          tion — Fine)                                         including those relating to the application for interim measures;
                                                                         5.    Orders the ECSA and the JSA to bear their own costs and the
                        (2002/C 169/50)                                        costs of the Commission relating to their interventions;
                                                                         6.    Orders the ECTU to bear one fifth of its own costs, including
                  (Language of the case: English)                              those relating to the application for interim measures.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.95.
In Case T-86/95, Compagnie Générale Maritime, established
in Suresnes (France), Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, estab-
lished in Hamburg (Germany), Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited,
established in Tokyo (Japan), Lloyd Triestino di Navigazione
SpA, established in Trieste (Italy), AP Møller-Mærsk Line,
established in Copenhagen (Denmark), Malaysian International                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Shipping Corporation Berhad, established in Kuala Lumpur
(Malaysia), Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd, established in Tokyo,
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam (the Nether-                                          of 10 April 2002
lands), Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore
(Singapore), Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, established in               in Case T-209/00, Frank Lamberts v European Ombuds-
Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line, established in Hong                                               man (1)
Kong (China), P & O Containers Ltd, established in London
(United Kingdom), Wilh. Wilhemsen Ltd A/S, established in                (Action for damages — Admissibility — Non-contractual
Oslo (Norway), represented by P. Ruttley, Solicitor, J. Pheasant         liability — European Ombudsman — Conduct of Ombuds-
and A. Mariott, lawyers, with an address for service in                                   man in dealing with a complaint)
Luxembourg, supported by The European Community Ship-
owners’ Associations, having their registered office in Brussels
(Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an                                           (2002/C 169/51)
address for service in Luxembourg, and The Japanese Ship-
owners’ Association, having its registered office in Tokyo,                                  (Language of the case: French)
represented by F. Randolph, Barrister, and F. Murphy, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: B. Langeheine and
R. Lyal), supported by The European Council of Transport                 In Case T-209/00, Frank Lamberts, residing at Linkebeek
Users ASBL, established in Brussels, including The European              (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address
Shippers Council, represented by M. Cough, barrister, with an            for service in Luxembourg, against European Ombudsman
address for service in Luxembourg: Application for annulment             (Agent: J. Sant’Anna) — application for compensation for
of Commission Decision 94/985/EC of 21 December 1994                     material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/          applicant as a result of the conduct of the European Ombuds-
33.218 — Far Eastern Freight Conference) (OJ 1994 L 378,                 man in dealing with his complaint — the Court of First
p. 17), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed            Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;              K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
Y. Mottard, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2002, in
judgment on 28 February 2002, in which it:                               which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
1.    Dismisses the application;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                                30 April 2002
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.                                                   In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01: Government of
                                                                            Gibraltar v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Tax legislation — Existing aid or new aid —
                                                                           Initiation of the formal investigation procedure provided for
                                                                                in Article 88(2) EC)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         (2002/C 169/53)
                            3 May 2002                                                        (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-177/01: Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, Government of
(Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 — Recovery of                    Gibraltar, represented by A. Sutton and M. Llamas, Barristers,
the stock of hake — Fishing company — Action for                           and W. Schuster, lawyer, with an address for service in
annulment — Person individually concerned — Admissi-                       Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                               bility)                                     (Agent: V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                           Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta): Application for annulment
                                                                           of decisions SG(2001) D/289755 and SG(2001) D/289757 of
                          (2002/C 169/52)                                  the Commission of 11 July 2001 initiating the procedure
                                                                           provided for by Article 88(2) EC in respect of the Gibraltarian
                    (Language of the case: French)                         legislation on exempt companies and qualifying companies,
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Com-
                                                                           position), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                           J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA, established at Lorient             30 April 2002, in which it:
(France), represented by A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente
and A. Agustinoy Guilayn, lawyers, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and A. Bordes):                  1.    In Case T-195/01:
Application for annulment of Articles 3(d) and 5 of Com-
mission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001
establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in                   (a)  Annuls decision SG (2001) D/289755 of the Com-
ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a,                      mission of 11 July 2001 initiating the procedure laid
b, d, e and associated conditions for the control of activities of                    down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the Gibraltar
fishing vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4), the Court of First                             exempt companies legislation;
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood                (b) Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                          Government of Gibraltar and to bear its own costs, with
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2002, in which it:                           the exception of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
                                                                                in Case T-195/01 R, which shall be paid in their entirety
                                                                                by the Government of Gibraltar;
1.    Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;
                                                                                (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;
2.    Orders that the proceedings be continued in relation to the
      substance;
                                                                           2.    In Case T-207/01:
3.    Reserves the costs.
                                                                                (a)  Dismisses the application;
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                      (b) Orders the Government of Gibraltar to pay the costs
                                                                                incurred by the Commission and to bear its own costs,
                                                                                including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings
                                                                                in Case T-207/01 R;


title: Case C-514/08: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — Atenor Group SA v Belgian State

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — Atenor Group SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-514/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/72

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-303/10: Action brought on 19 July 2010 — Wam v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/38

         Action brought on 19 July 2010 — Wam v Commission
   (Case T-303/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Wam SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, lawyer, I. Perego, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, the contested decision insofar as:

                           —

                           it declares that WAM has benefited from unlawful State aid, for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU, under the 1995 financing contract and the 2000 financing contract, both of which were entered into pursuant to Article 2 of Italian Law 394/1981;

                           —

                           it declares that the aid under the 1995 and 2000 financing contracts is incompatible with the common market;

                           —

                           it orders the incompatible aid to be recovered as assessed, providing also that interest calculated from the date on which the aid was granted to WAM is payable on the amounts to be recovered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision is the same as that in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission. (1)

   WAM raises seven pleas in law, submitting that the European Commission:

               —

               misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU to the facts and, in any event, incorrectly assessed the facts and failed to state sufficient reasons, in so far as it found that the interest-rate subsidies received by WAM for trade-penetration programmes in non-member States were liable to affect intra-Community trade and to distort competition, failing to have regard to the findings already set out in that regard by the Court of Justice in Case C-94/06 P, (2) and by the General Court in Case T-316/04, (3) in breach of Article 266 TFEU;

               —

               incorrectly found, without reasoning, that Article 107(1) TFEU was applicable to the financing in question, without taking into consideration the principles and rules applied by itself to similar support measures for trade-penetration programmes in non-member States. The Commission did not find that that financing had been granted in the context of the scheme provided for under Law 394/1981, and also infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 1(b) of Regulation 659/99;

               —

               incorrectly found, while failing to provide adequate reasons, that the aid from which WAM benefited was in part incompatible with the common market, thereby infringing Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, the de minimis regulation and the relevant block exemption regulations;

               —

               incorrectly calculated the grant equivalent of the aid in the form of subsidised interest received by WAM;

               —

               failed to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, in order to re-adopt the decision already annulled by the Court of Justice and the General Court, thereby breaching WAM’s rights of defence.

               —

               breached the principles of sound administration and diligence owing, in particular, to the excessive duration of the administrative procedure.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      (2)  Case C-494/06 P Commission v Italy and Wam [2009] ECR I-3639.

      (3)  Case T-316/04 R Italy and Wam v Commission [2009] ECR II-3197.


title: Case C-481/09: Action brought on 27 November 2009 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/41

         Action brought on 27 November 2009 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-481/09)
   2010/C 24/71
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Thomannová-Körnerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, (1) or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for implementing the directive into domestic law expired on 24 March 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 64, p. 37.


title: Case T-573/10: Action brought on 23 December 2010 — Octapharma Pharmazeutika v EMA

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/27

         Action brought on 23 December 2010 — Octapharma Pharmazeutika v EMA
   (Case T-573/10)
   2011/C 55/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Octapharma Pharmazeutika Produktionsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: I. Brinker, T. Holzmüller and Professor J. Schwarze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the note of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to the applicant of 21 October 2010, in so far as the recovery of excess fees amounting to EUR 180 700 was refused;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.
   1.   First plea: Infringement of the principle that the administration must act lawfully in conjunction with the legal rules applicable to the charging of fees
   In that regard, the applicant claims that EMA refused the recovery of fees on the basis of an unlawful fee regulation issued by it. EMA exceeded its margin of appreciation, in so far as it based the contested decision on a fee regulation which infringes specific and general principles of fee calculation. The applicant claims that the fee regulation is in particular not covered by Regulation (EC) No 297/95 (1). The fee charged infringes the principles of adequate and moderate fee charging. Furthermore, it is clearly disproportionate to the fees charged for initial certification, annual re-certification and established administrative procedure.
   2.   Second plea: Infringement of the principle of proportionality
   The applicant claims that there is an infringement of the principle of proportionality in the comparison with the fees for the other services offered by EMA. Although other certifications for plasma master files would involve a similar or greater administrative burden, significantly lower fees were fixed in relation to them. It is also apparent from a comparison with recent fee practice with regard to the administrative services accounted for here that the fee charged is disproportionate to the resulting burden.
   3.   Third plea: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations with regard to sudden changes in administrative behaviour
   The applicant claims in the context of the third plea that EMA suddenly changed its fee practice in a way that was not foreseeable for the applicant and the other affected parties, and thereby infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In particular, the defendant disregarded the applicable legal framework and its margin of appreciation in the calculation of the fees, so that the applicant can rely on the protection of its legitimate expectations. In the opinion of the applicant, it is particularly detrimental in that respect that EMA reverted to the old fee practice even before issuing the contested decision.
   4.   Fourth plea: Infringement of the duty of fair and consistent administration
   The applicant claims in this respect that the sudden fee increase breaches the duty of fair and consistent administration codified in the ‘Commission Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public’ and resulting from the right to good administration in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. In established EMA fee practice, there would otherwise be a significantly lower fee charged for the same administrative burden, based on a different method of calculation. It follows that the present case concerns an unjustified change in administrative behaviour. Moreover, the applicant claims that, in the light of the special temporal circumstances and the additional burden in comparison with the previous years, EMA should have responded to the applicant’s case at least by way of an exceptional or transitional regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1995 L 35, p. 1).


title: Case C-354/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 3 September 2009 — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 3 September 2009 — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-354/09)
   2009/C 282/48
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gaston Schul BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financien

      Question referred

   In the case of subsequent entry in the accounts within the meaning of Article 220 of the Community Customs Code (1) must it be assumed that the condition laid down in Article 33(1)(f) of the Community Customs Code, under which import duties are not to be included in the customs value, is satisfied where the seller and buyer of the goods concerned have agreed on the delivery term ‘delivered duties paid’ and this is stated in the customs declaration, even if in determining the transaction price they — wrongly — assumed that no customs duties would be owed upon importation of the goods into the Community and consequently no amount of customs duties was stated in the invoice or in or with the declaration?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302 p. 1).


C 55/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case C-260/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/46)                                                          (2003/C 55/49)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/01 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-260/01: European Parliament v
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Finanziaria Immobiliare            Council of the European Union.
Perugino SpA v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-310/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-90/01 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/50)
                         (2003/C 55/47)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-310/01 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-90/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, AMGA —
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): San Marco SpA and Others
                                                                        Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. v Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l, A.G.E.S.I. —
v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-231/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-346/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/48)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/51)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-231/01 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): El. Da Srl v Ministero delle       from the register of Case C-346/01: Commission of the
Finanze.                                                                European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-468/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Exclusion of certain expenditure — Public storage of olive oil — Arable crops sector)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-468/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Exclusion of certain expenditure - Public storage of olive oil - Arable crops sector)
   (2005/C 132/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-468/02 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: S. Pardo Quintillán) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 31 December 2002 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 08.03.2003.


title: Case C-118/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG
   (Case C-118/13)
   2013/C 171/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gülay Bollacke

      Defendant: K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice according to which the entitlement to a minimum period of paid annual leave is lost in its entirety on the death of the worker, namely not only the entitlement to release from the obligation to work, which can no longer be implemented, but also the entitlement to payment of remuneration in respect of annual leave?

               2.

               Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EG to be interpreted as meaning that the entitlement to an allowance in lieu of a minimum period of paid annual leave on termination of the employment relationship attaches to the person of the worker in such a way that that entitlement accrues only to him, in order to enable him to realise at a later date the purposes of rest and leisure associated with the granting of paid annual leave?

               3.

               Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the protection of the safety and health of workers, the employer is obliged, when organising working time, actually to grant the worker leave by the end of the calendar year or, at the latest, by the end of a carry over period applicable to the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not the worker has submitted an application for leave?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Designation of a President of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers of the Court of First Instance

text:
11.4.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of                Designation of a President of Chambers and assignment of
            Justice of the European Communities                        Judges to Chambers of the Court of First Instance
                         (98/C 113/01)                                                   (98/C 113/04)
Following his appointment as Advocate-General at the              At its plenary meeting of 10 March 1998, the Court of
Court of Justice of the European Communities by                   First Instance, following the departure from office of
Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the         President A. Saggio and the entry into office of Judge P.
Member States of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Antonio                 Mengozzi, decided as follows:
Saggio took the oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  For the period from 10 March 1998, President B.
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                  Vesterdorf shall preside over the First Chamber and the
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition, and Mr Mengozzi,
                                                                  Judge, is assigned to the First Chamber, the First Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition.
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of First
                                                                  Accordingly, the composition of the Chambers decided
           Instance of the European Communities
                                                                  upon on 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 14) shall be
                         (98/C 113/02)                            amended as follows:
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of First          First Chamber
Instance of the European Communities by Decision of the
representatives of the Governments of the Member States           Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr
of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Paolo Mengozzi took the               Mengozzi, Judges;
oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 25.
                                                                  Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Bellamy, Mr Moura Ramos,
                                                                  Mr Pirrung and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                  Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
Election of the President of the Court of First Instance of
                  the European Communities                        Mr Azizi, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                         (98/C 113/03)                            Mr Moura Ramos, Mr Jaeger and Mr Mengozzi, Judges.
At the meeting on 4 March 1998, the Judges of the Court           For cases in which the written procedure was completed
of First Instance of the European Communities elected, in         and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed
accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr           before 10 March 1998 by those Chambers in their
B. Vesterdorf as President of the Court of First Instance         previous composition, but without President Saggio, they
for the period from 4 March 1998 up to 31 August 1998.            shall continue to sit with that composition.


title: Case C-496/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Pál Aranyosi

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Pál Aranyosi
   (Case C-496/16)
   (2016/C 475/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

      Party to the main proceedings

   Pál Aranyosi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States to be interpreted as meaning that the executing Member State, when taking a decision on extradition for the purposes of prosecution, must eliminate any real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person sought, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, attributable to the conditions of his detention only in the first prison in which that person will be imprisoned following his surrender to the issuing Member State?

               2.

               Must the executing State, when taking that decision, also eliminate any real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person whose surrender is sought that may be attributable to the conditions of his detention in the place of his subsequent imprisonment in the event of conviction?

               3.

               Must the executing State eliminate that risk for the person whose surrender is sought also in the event of possible relocations to other prisons?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-355/04 and T-446/04: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2010 — Co-Frutta v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the Community market for imports of bananas — Implied refusal of access followed by express refusal — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of third parties — Compliance with time-limits — Prior consent of the Member State — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2010 — Co-Frutta v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-355/04 and T-446/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the Community market for imports of bananas - Implied refusal of access followed by express refusal - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of third parties - Compliance with time-limits - Prior consent of the Member State - Obligation to state reasons)
   2010/C 51/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. (Padua, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Visaggio and P. Aalto, initially, and P. Aalto and L. Prete, subsequently, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action in Case T-355/04 for annulment of (i) the decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 rejecting an initial application for access to information concerning operators registered in the Community as importers of bananas and (ii) the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the confirmatory access application and action in Case T-446/04 for annulment of the express decision of the Commission of 10 August 2004 refusing access to the information

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-355/04;

               2.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-446/04;

               3.

               Orders Co-Frutta Soc. coop. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-219/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium)) — Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers VZW, Andibel VZW v Belgische Staat (Article 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Prohibition on holding mammals of certain species referred to by that regulation or not covered by it — Holding permitted in other Member States)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium)) — Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers VZW, Andibel VZW v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-219/07) (1)

   (Article 30 EC - Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Prohibition on holding mammals of certain species referred to by that regulation or not covered by it - Holding permitted in other Member States)
   (2008/C 209/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State van België
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers VZW, Andibel VZW

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 30 EC and of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1996 L 61, p. 1) — National legislation providing a list of species which may be held in the Member State concerned, whose effect is to rule out the holding of the species referred to in Annexes B, C or D to the regulation and of those not covered by the regulation — Holding authorised in other Member States whose legislation complies with the regulation
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, read separately or in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a prohibition on importing, holding or trading in mammals belonging to species other than those expressly referred to in that legislation applies to species of mammals which are not included in Annex A to that regulation, if the protection of or compliance with the interests and requirements referred to in paragraphs 27 to 29 of this judgment cannot be secured just as effectively by measures which obstruct intra-Community trade to a lesser extent.
   It is for the national court to determine:

               —

               whether the drawing up of the national list of species of mammals which may be held and subsequent amendments to that list are based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria;

               —

               whether a procedure enabling interested parties to have species of mammals included in that list is provided for, readily accessible and can be completed within a reasonable time, and whether, where there is a refusal to include a species, it being obligatory to state the reasons for that refusal, that refusal decision is open to challenge before the courts;

               —

               whether applications to obtain the inclusion of a species of mammal in that list or to obtain individual derogations to hold specimens of species not included in that list may be refused by the competent administrative authorities only if the holding of specimens of the species concerned poses a genuine risk to the protection of the abovementioned interests and requirements; and

               —

               whether conditions for the holding of specimens of mammals not referred to in that list, such as those set out in Article 3bis(2)(3)(b) and (6) of the Law of 14 August 1986 concerning the protection and welfare of animals, as amended by the Law of 4 May 1995, are objectively justified and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the national legislation as a whole.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 1998 in Case C-221/97 P: Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and Karl-Julius Thamann v. Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Control of classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 48/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees'
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses
                                                                     or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that
                   of 10 December 1998
                                                                     the directive applies to a situation in which a public body
in Joined Cases C-173/96 and C-247/96 (references for a              which had contracted out its home-help service for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia            persons in need or awarded a contract for maintaining
de Castilla-La Mancha and from the Arbeitsgericht                    surveillance of some of its premises to a first undertaking
Lörrach): Francisca SaÂnchez Hidalgo and Others v.                   decides, upon expiry of or after termination of the
Asociación de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa                contract which it had with that first undertaking, to
Minerva (C-173/96), and Horst Ziemann v. Ziemann                     contract out that service or award that contract to a
Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst                     second undertaking, provided that the operation is
                         (C-247/96) (1)                              accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity
(Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers         between the two undertakings. The term economic entity'
                      of undertakings)                               refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets
                                                                     enabling an economic activity which pursues a specific
                        (1999/C 48/01)                               objective to be exercised. The mere fact that the service
       (Languages of the cases: Spanish and German)                  successively provided by the old and the new undertaking
                                                                     to which the service is contracted out or the contract is
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        awarded is similar does not justify the conclusion that a
         published in the European Court Reports)                    transfer of such an entity has occurred.
In Joined Cases C-173/96 and C-247/96: references to the             (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996 and OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
(Spain) (C-173/96) and by the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach
(Germany) (C-247/96) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between
Francisca SaÂnchez Hidalgo and Others and Asociación de                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva                                             (Fifth Chamber)
(C-173/96), and between Horst Ziemann and Ziemann
Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst                                         of 10 December 1998
(C-247/96) Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive              in Case C-221/97 P: Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and
77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of               Karl-Julius Thamann v. Commission of the European
the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding                                  Communities (1)
of employees' rights in the event of transfers of
                                                                     (Non-contractual liability of the Community Ð Control of
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,
                                                                      classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)
5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the                                          (1999/C 48/02)
Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
Gulmann and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; G. Cosmas,                                     (Language of the case: German)
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 1998,               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in which it has ruled:                                                        published in the European Court Reports)
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of                      In Case C-221/97 P: Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the             Karl-Julius Thamann, acting in the capacity of partners in
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.1999
Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, a partnership governed by                     Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
German law, established in Neuenkirchen (Germany),                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
represented by Gerd Rentzmann and Rudolf Brenken,                    10 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Rechtsanwälte, Quakenbrück, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre
                                                                     1. In the case of a former frontier worker and recipient
Feltgen and AndreÂ Harpes, 14A Rue des Bains Ð appeal
                                                                          of invalidity benefits who lives in a Member State
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          other than that of the institution responsible for
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 1997
                                                                          payment, and whose place of residence is nearer to the
in Case T-390/94 Schröder and Others v. Commission
                                                                          institution of the competent Member State than to the
[1997] ECR II-501, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                          institution of the State of residence, Article 51(1) of
aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                          21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing
Claudia Schmidt, assisted by Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð the
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                          social security schemes to employed persons and their
(Rapporteur), President of the First Chamber, acting as
                                                                          families moving within the Community, as amended
President of the Fifth Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
                                                                          and updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D.
                                                                          precludes the competent institution from carrying out
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                          the administrative checks and medical examination of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 1998, in
                                                                          that worker without requesting a prior examination by
which it:
                                                                          the institution of his place of residence. However, the
                                                                          provision does not preclude the worker from waiving
1. Dismisses the appeal.                                                  the right to undergo the prior examination by the
                                                                          institution of his place of residence, provided that his
2. Orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                waiver is freely made and unambiguous.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             2. In the case of a first assessment of invalidity benefit
                                                                          granted to a person who is resident in a Member State
                                                                          other than that of the competent institution, Article 40
                                                                          of the Regulation does not preclude the competent
                                                                          institution from determining the degree of invalidity
                                                                          on the basis of its own medical examination without
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       requesting a prior examination by the institution of
                      (Third Chamber)                                     the place of residence. However, the competent
                                                                          institution must take account of any documents,
                    of 10 December 1998                                   medical reports and administrative information from
in Case C-279/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the institution in the Member State in which the
the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Bestuur van het Landelijk                  worker resides.
Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. C. J. M. Voeten and
                          J. Beckers (1)                             (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
(Social security Ð Frontier workers Ð Invalidity Ð
                    Medical examination)
                        (1999/C 48/03)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                         of 10 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-290/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-279/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           the Bundesfinanzhof): Georg Bruner, trading as Georg
of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep                             Bruner' v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
(Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Bestuur van het                    (Export refunds Ð Nomenclature of agricultural products)
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen and C. J. M.                                       (1999/C 48/04)
Voeten, J. Beckers Ð on the interpretation of Articles 40
and 51 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of
21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing                                  (Language of the case: German)
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
moving within the Community, as amended and updated
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984,
p. 86) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P.
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de              In Case C-290/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
Almeida (Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; D.                      of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for


title: Case C-566/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 December 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stadeco BV

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 December 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stadeco BV
   (Case C-566/07)
   (2008/C 64/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: Stadeco BV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that no liability to pay VAT arises in the Member State in which the issuer of the invoice is resident or established if the issuer of that invoice includes in it the VAT in respect of an activity which, according to the common system of value added tax, is deemed to be carried out in another Member State or in a non-member country?

               2.

               If not: if an invoice as referred to in Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive has been issued to a recipient of services who is not entitled to deduct VAT (and consequently there is no risk of any loss of tax revenues), are the Member States entitled to make the correction of the erroneously invoiced VAT which, according to that provision, is consequently liable to be paid, subject to the requirement that the taxable person subsequently issues a corrected invoice to his customer in which there is no mention of any VAT amount?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 202/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-382/00 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-238/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/66)                                                          (2002/C 202/68)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 30 May 2002 the President of the Second Chamber              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-238/01:
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-382/00:                  Centre Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
Monsanto Company v Council of the European Union.                        (CESD — Communautaire, A.s.b.l.) v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/01 and
                          T-161/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/67)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/02 (1)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/69)
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber                                (Language of the Case: Spanish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/
01 and T-161/01: Raymond Maxwell and Liam O’Bradaigh                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber
v Commission of the European Communities.                                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/02: Guiller-
                                                                         mo Balmori Abella v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001 and C 289 of 13.10.2001.                      ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case T-138/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Ahouma v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/22

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Ahouma v Council
   (Case T-138/11)
   2011/C 130/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brouha Nathanaël Ahouma (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Brouha Nathanaël AHOUMA, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Brouha Nathanaël AHOUMA be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Case T-811/14: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely — Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY — Decision on the appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers — Manifest errors of assessment)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/44

         Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)
   (Case T-811/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely - Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Manifest errors of assessment))
   (2017/C 104/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Technopharma and Unilever.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Technopharma Ltd et Unilever NV;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever;

               3.

               Orders Technopharma to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-361/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2013 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ECOFORCE — Earlier Community figurative mark ECO FORTE — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2013 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE)
   (Case T-361/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ECOFORCE - Earlier Community figurative mark ECO FORTE - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 24/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Premiere Polish Co. Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Jones and M. Carter, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Donau Kanol GmbH & Co. KG (Ried im Traunkreis, Austria)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 851/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Donau Kanol GmbH & Co. KG and Premiere Polish Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Premiere Polish Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Case C-327/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March 2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA

text:
4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/15
1.    Is Article 141 (1) directly applicable in the circumstances        Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
      of this case (as set out in this judgment) so that it can be       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
      relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to           Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,
      enable them to compare their pay with that of men in               Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council
      who are performing work of equal value to that done by             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the applicants?
                                                                         1.    declare that, by granting the seal of quality ‘Markenquali-
2.    Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct
                                                                               tät aus deutschen Landen’ to manufactured goods of a
      effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent
                                                                               certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic
      employer is in a position where he is able to explain
                                                                               of Germany has infringed Article 28 EC;
      why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his
      employees as he does?
                                                                         2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The grant of the quality mark exclusively to German products
                                                                         which meet certain quality standards is likely to impede
                                                                         imports between Member States, whether directly or indirectly,
                                                                         actually or potentially. A designation of quality may not —
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  subject to the provisions on designations of origin and
Münster by order of 21 August 2000 in the case of                        indication as to provenance — be reserved for domestic
     Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt                        products. The designation in question does not fall within the
                                                                         scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92,
                                                                         since it is too remote from the specific subject-matter of that
                         (Case C-324/00)                                 regulation. Even advertising by reference to a quality mark is
                                                                         not allowed to include the geographical origin of the goods, in
                         (2000/C 316/27)                                 this case ‘German’. Even if it is conceded to the Federal
                                                                         Government that the seal of quality does not reflect any
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ‘chauvinistic intentions’, the emphasis on quality in direct
European Communities by order of 21 August 2000 by the                   association with an indication as to provenance — in this case,
Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Münster, which was received at             the domestic origin of the product — none the less constitutes
the Court Registry on 4 September 2000, for a preliminary                at the same time discrimination against equivalent goods of
ruling in the case of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt                 different origin.
Steinfurt on the following question:
Is the requirement of freedom of establishment for nationals
of a Member State in the territory of another Member State
laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty of 10 November 1997
establishing the European Community to be interpreted as
precluding the national rule in Paragraph 8a of the German
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on Corporation Tax)?
                                                                         of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
                                                                         by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v
                                                                         Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke,
                                                                                Artsana SpA and Fater SpA
                                                                                (Case C-327/00)
Action brought on 4 September 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                         (2000/C 316/29)
                         (Case C-325/00)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
                                                                         Tribunal Amministrativo per la Lombardia (Regional Adminis-
                         (2000/C 316/28)                                 trative Court, Lombardy) dated 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000, which was received at the Court
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    Registry on 5 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42,
ties on 4 September 2000 by the Commission of the European               Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the
Communities, represented by J. Christian Schieferer and                  following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
1.   May Article 22 of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June              2.    Was it permissible to increase the prices established for
     1993 be interpreted as meaning that the competent                       Hamburg and ‘Fac Atlant’ by the addition of notional
     national courts are required to protect citizens of the                 freight costs of ECU 3,8 per tonne?
     Union adversely affected by measures adopted in breach
     of Community law, by resorting, in particular, to disappli-
     cation as provided for in Article 5 of Law No 2248 of             3.    When determining the final reference price was it per-
     20 March 1865 with respect to clauses of an invitation                  missible to use as a basis purely mathematically deter-
     to tender which are contrary to Community law but were                  mined average prices, without taking into account the
     not challenged within the short time-limit laid down by                 different quantities marketed in the individual months of
     national procedural law for the application of Community                the calculation period?
     law by the court of its own motion, whenever it is found,
     first, that the application of Community law has been             4.    If questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, is
     seriously impeded or rendered difficult in any way, and                 Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 defective as regards its
     second, that there is a public interest, of Community or                criteria for calculating the final regional reference amount
     national origin, which justifies such application?                      in that it fails to state reasons within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 253 (previously Article 190) of the EC Treaty?
2.   Does Article 6(2) of the Treaty which, by providing for
     respect of the fundamental rights safeguarded by the              5.    Would that failure to state reasons be so material that it
     European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamen-                       would lead to the nullity, in whole or in part, of the
     tal Freedoms, has adopted the principle of effective                    regulation?
     judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of
     that Convention, lead to the same conclusion?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1993 L 56 of 9.3.1993, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Com-
                                                                       mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg by order of 30 August
2000 in the case of Maria Weber and Martin Weber v                                               (Case C-335/00)
                        Freistaat Bayern
                                                                                (2000/C 316/31)
                        (Case C-328/00)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 316/30)                                ties on 11 September 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also
European Communities by order of 30 August 2000 by
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht (Bavarian Administrative
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 Septemb-
er 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern on the following
questions:
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
1.   Was the Commission, when establishing the final regional                trative provisions needed in order to comply with
     reference amount, entitled, notwithstanding the wording
     of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 (1), to leave
     out of account reference prices from months in the                      —     Commission Directive 98/68/EC of 10 September
     period between 1 July 1992 and January 1993, to include                       1998 laying down the standard document referred
     in its calculation reference prices from months after that                    to in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and
     period, and to replace missing information on reference                       certain rules for checks at the introduction into the
     prices by an estimate?                                                        Community of feedingstuffs from third countries (1),


13 . 4 . 96           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/7
Action brought on 26 February 1996 by the Kingdom                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                        ( Case C-58/96                                  in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                          ( 96/C 108/ 12 )
                                                                        (') OJ 1996 L 20 , p. 17.
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ 1996 C 46 , p. 11 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 26 February 1996 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ,
Foreign Trade and Development Aid , with an address for                         Removal from the register of Case C-390/93 ( )
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
Girondins .                                                                                ( 96/C 108/ 13 )
The applicant claims that the Court should annul                        By order of 17 January 1996 the President of the Court of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 127/96 of 25 January                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional             from the register of Case C-390/93 : Commission of the
to the tariff quota for imports of bananas during the first             European Communities v . Kingdom of Spain .
quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and
Marilyn ( ] ) and order the Commission to pay the costs .               (') OJ No C 261 , 25 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2 , orders each party to bear its own costs, including the
                     of 27 February 1996                                       costs relating to the application for interim measures.
      in Case T-235/94 : Roberto Galtieri v. European
                            Parliament ( 1 )                             (') OJ No 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
 (Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue
payment — Misuse ofpowers — Legitimate expectations —
                              Damages)
                           ( 96/C 108/14 )
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 28 February 1996
                                                                                in Case T-294/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis
                                                                             v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (')
 In Case T-235/94, Roberto Galtieri, temporary agent of the
 European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by                (Officials — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the
 Harold Wouters, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                  Staff Regulations of Officials)
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bertrand                                                   ( 96/C 108 / 15 )
 Assoignons, 8 Rue des Girondins, v . European Parliament
 ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Kieran Bradley ) — application
 for, first, the annulment of the decision of the European                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
 Parliament, notified by letter of 19 January 1994, to recover
 sums unduly paid to the applicant by way of household                    In Case T-294/94, Konstantinos Dimitriadis, a former
 allowance , secondly, an order that the Parliament reimburse             official of the Court of Auditors of the European
 the sums deducted from his monthly salary and, thirdly, an               Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
 order that the Parliament pay damages and default interest,              Markos Papazissis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address
 the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of               for service at the applicant's address, 4a Boulevard
  A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos,                Grande-Duchesse Charlotte, v . Court of Auditors of the
 Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Steiner,
  a judgment on 27 February in which it:                                   Christos Komninos and Paolo Giusta ) — application for,
                                                                           first, the annulment of Decisions Nos 8543 and 8912 of the
                                                                           Court of Auditors of 8 March and 1 July 1994, rejecting
  1 , dismisses the application;                                           respectively his request for assistance under the first


 11 . 11 . 95       | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 299/21
       Removal from the register of Case T-555 /93 (')                3 . the Kingdom of Spain shall hear its own costs.
                          ( 95 /C 299/42 )
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 August 1 995 the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                    Removal from the register of Case T-15/94 (')
from the register of Case T-555/93 : David Alwyn Jones v.                                       ( 95 /C 299/44 )
Council of the European Union .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                      By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-15/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                       of 9 August 1995
in Case T-5 85/93 : Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')
                        (Inadmissibility)                                   Removal from the register of Case T- 18/94 (')
                         ( 95/C 299/43 )                                                        ( 95 /C 299/45 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
In Case T-585/93 , Stichting Greenpeace Council                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( Greenpeace International ), Domingo Viera Gonzalez ,                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Pablo Guedes Garcia , Jose Ignacio Trojaola Chavez, Aurora           T- 1 8/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
Gonzalez Gonzalez, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sanchez               Communities .
Artiles, Jose Juan Melián Melián , Carmen Guadalupe
Gomez Castro , Clara Donate Hernandez , Balbina Martin                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Espínola , Jose Hernandez Morin , German Peña Hernandez ,
Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentin Hernandez Vaquero ,
Peter Reinhard , Julio Gonzalez Dominguez, Tagoror
Ecologista Alternativo and Comisión Canaria contra la
Contaminación , represented by Philippe Sands and Mark
Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of England and Wales ,                      Removal from the register of Case T-19/94 (')
instructed by Leigh , Day & Co ., Solicitors with an address                                    ( 95/C 299/46 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Noesen , 18 Rue des Glacis, against Commission of the                               (Language of the case: French)
European Communities ( Agent: David Gilmour ), supported
by Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for annulment of the            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
decision alleged to have been adopted by the Commission               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
between 7 March 1991 and 29 October 1993 to disburse to              T-19/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
the Kingdom of Spain a sum of the order of ECU 1 1 000 000            Communities .
or 12 000 000 pursuant to Decision C(91 ) 440 concerning
financial assistance provided by the European Regional                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Development Fund for the construction of two power
stations in the Canary Islands ( Gran Canaria and Tenerife )
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili ,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 August                       Removal from the register of Case T-69/94 (')
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/47 )
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                  ( Language of the case: French)
2 . the applicants shall jointly and severally bear the               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
     costs ;                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- No C 299/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11 . 11 . 95
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF
T-69/94 : Georgios Rounis v. Commission of the European                                     FIRST INSTANCE
Communities .
                                                                                of 1 1 August 1 995
                                                                             in Case T-l 04/95 R : Tsimentas Chalkidos AE
(') O | No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                              v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/49 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      In Case T-l 04/95 R : Tsimentas Chalkidos AE, established
         Removal from the register of Joined Cases                    in Athens ( Greece ), represented by Panagiotis Bernitsas, of
                T-61 /95 R and T-62/95 R (M                           the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                           ( 95/C 299/48 )                            at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8-10 , Rue Mathias
                                                                      Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       ( Agents : Theofanis Christoforou and Richard Lyal ) —
                                                                      application for suspension of operation of Commission
By order of 13 July 1995 the President of the Court of First          Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
from the register of Joined Cases T-61 /95 R and T-62/95 R :          IV/33 . 126 and 33.322 — Cement, OJ 1994 L 343 , p. 1 ), in
CIMPOR — Cimentos de Portugal , SA and SECIL —                        so far as it requires the applicant to pay a fine of ECU
                                                                       1 856 000 — the President of the Court of First Instance
Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento , SA v. Commission of
the European Communities .
                                                                      made an order on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of
                                                                      which is as follows :
(') Q J No C 1 37, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.   the costs are reserved.


title: Case C-502/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 November 2007 — K-1 sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 November 2007 — K-1 sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy
   (Case C-502/07)
   (2008/C 22/55)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K-1 sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes, in conjunction with Articles 2, 10(1)(a) and 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, rule out the possibility of imposing an obligation on a taxable person for the purpose of tax on goods and services to pay an additional tax liability within the terms of Article 109(5) and (6) of the Ustawa o Podatku od Towarów i Usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dz. U. No 54, pos 535 with amendments) in the event that it is established that the taxable person for the purpose of tax on goods and services indicated in the tax declaration submitted an amount of the tax difference to be repaid or the input tax to be repaid which is greater than the amount due?

               2.

               Can ‘special measures’ within the terms of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, consist, having regard to their character and purpose, in the possibility of imposing on a taxable person for the purpose of tax on goods and services an additional tax liability fixed by a decision of the tax authority where it is established that the taxable person has declared an overstated amount of the tax difference to be repaid or an overstated amount of input tax to be repaid?

               3.

               Does the power provided for by Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, encompass the right to introduce the additional tax liability laid down in Article 109(5) and (6) of the Ustawa o Podatku od Towarów i Usług of 11 March 2004 (Dz. U. No 54, pos 535 with amendments)?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-203/13: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-203/13) (1)

   2013/C 377/22
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.