title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2000 in Case C-284/98 P: European Parliament v Roland Bieber (Appeal — Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Reinstatement — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Determination of the period to be taken into account for calculating the damage suffered)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 March 2000
                          of 16 March 2000
                                                                           in Case C-439/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-284/98 P: European Parliament v Roland Bieber                                         ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Leave on personal grounds —                          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Reinstatement — Non-contractual liability of the Com-                      Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks
munity — Determination of the period to be taken into                             related to exposure to biological agents at work)
         account for calculating the damage suffered)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/08)
                           (2000/C 149/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-439/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: initially A. Aresu, subsequently K. Oldfelt Hjertonsson)
                                                                           against Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza, assisted
In Case C-284/98 P: European Parliament (Agents: J.L.R. Quin-
                                                                           by D. Del Gaizo) — application for a declaration that by failing
tana and E. Waldherr), appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                 to adopt and bring into force within the prescribed period the
                                                                           laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber) of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96 Bieber v Parlia-
                                                                           comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
ment [1998] ECR I-A-231 and II-723, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being               adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
                                                                           on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
Roland Bieber, a former official of the European Parliament,
                                                                           biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within
residing in Lausanne, Switzerland, represented by G. Vander-
sanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
                                                                           (OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41), or by failing to communicate such
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
                                                                           provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
de Cessange — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch             under that Directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
                                                                           of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 2000, in which                 Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; S. Alber,
it:                                                                        Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                           16 March 2000, in the operative part of which it:
1. Sets aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the
                                                                           1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    Court of First Instance of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96
                                                                               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    Bieber v Parliament;
                                                                               comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
                                                                               adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
2. Declares that the amount payable to Mr Bieber as compensation               on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
    for his loss of income is equivalent to the difference between the         biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
    net remuneration he would have received between 1 January                  meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian
    1995 and 23 February 1996 and the total net income he                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
    received from other employment;
                                                                           2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
4. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of this appeal.         (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.


title: Case T-348/04: Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/57

         Action brought on 20 August 2004 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-348/04)
   (2004/C 262/105)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 August 2004 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition (SIDE), established in Vitry-sur-Seine (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis and Valérie Giacobbo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1, last sentence, of the Commission decision of 20 April 2004 concerning the implementation by France of aid in favour of the Coopérative d'Exportation du livre français (CELF);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1994 or, alternatively, 1997 or 1999;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul Article 1, last sentence, of the decision insofar as it declares the aid compatible before 1 November 1993;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant is an export agency for French-language books. In 1992, it lodged a complaint with the Commission relating to aid paid since 1977 by the French Government to the Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF). The Commission adopted decisions pursuant to that complaint. Those decisions were annulled by judgments of 18 September 1995 in Case T-49/93 and of 28 February 2002 in Case T-155/98. Further to the second judgment, the Commission adopted a third decision which is challenged in this action.
   The applicant submits first that the market in export agency has many particular features of which the contested decision fails to take account. The applicant also notes that the description of the aid in the decision is erroneous in that, according to the applicant, this is individual aid and not an aid scheme, the aid is given on a discriminatory basis and the criterion for payment, namely handling small orders, is artificial.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision has no legal basis in that it declares the aid compatible, as an aid to culture, pursuant to Article 87(3)(d) EC in respect of the period prior to 1 November 1993. According to the applicant, that provision was introduced by the Treaty on European Union and thus could not form the legal basis for declaring aid compatible before that Treaty entered into force, namely on 1 November 1993.
   The applicant further claims breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission based its decision on information dated later than the entry into force of the aid. According to the applicant, the decision results in a Member State being permitted to supply evaluation criteria which fluctuate over a period of more than 10 years, thereby favouring the situation of a State which has not complied with the obligation to notify, in breach of Article 88(3) EC.
   Finally, the applicant claims breach of Article 87(3)(d) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission declared the aid compatible on the basis of assessment criteria which form part of assessment of an aid scheme open to all whilst the aid at issue is individual aid paid to a single operator. The applicant also claims that examination of CELF's accounting data shows that the aid has no link with the handling of small orders.


title: Case C-391/17: Action brought on 30 June 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/7

         Action brought on 30 June 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-391/17)
   (2017/C 318/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, A. Caeiros, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not compensating the loss of an amount of own resources which should have been established and made available to the Union’s budget under Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Regulation 1552/1989 (1) (Articles 2, 6, 10, 12 and 13 of Regulation 609/2014 (2)) had export certificates not been issued in breach of Article 101(2) of Decision 91/482/EEC (3) for the imports of aluminum from Anguilla in 1999-2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (subsequently Article 10) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union), and

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Between March 1999 and June 2000 aluminum originating from third countries and first imported into Anguilla was, after re-export from Anguilla, imported into Italy. An export shipping allowance of USD 25 per metric tonne (the ‘transport aid’) had been granted by the Anguillan authorities for the goods transiting Anguilla. That ‘transport aid’ granted by Anguilla for transiting goods corresponding to a refund of customs duties would void the customs exemption in case of re-export from Anguilla and import into the EU. Article 101(2) of Decision 91/482/EEC was wrongly applied by Anguillan authorities as they issued export certificates although the conditions to do so were not fulfilled. Following violation of Article 101(2) of Decision 91/482/EEC due to Anguilla wrongfully issuing export certificates, Italy was hindered in collecting customs duties in accordance with Article 24 EC (now 29 TFEU).

               2.

               The United Kingdom is financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources caused by export certificates issued in breach of Article 101(2) of Decision 91/482/EEC. The United Kingdom authorities have not taken all appropriate measures to protect the Union’s financial interests and to ensure that Decision 91/482/EEC is correctly applied by the administration of Anguilla. Each Member State has to ensure that its overseas territories apply correctly any legal act applicable to them, such as Decision 91/482/EEC, in order to efficiently protect the EU's financial interests.

               3.

               Where actions or omissions of any Member State’s authorities result in a loss of own resources, the Union must be credited with the equivalent of the amount of own resources lost. Accordingly, the United Kingdom should compensate the Union’s budget for the total amount of own resources lost, and pay default interest under Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000 (4).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ L 155, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 may 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements (Recast) (OJ L 168, p. 39)

      (3)  Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (OJ L 263, p. 1)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ L 130, p. 1)


20.9.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 226/15
According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the                  Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined                                 (2003/C 226/28)
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level            By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the              register of Case C-131/02: Commission of the European
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other              Communities v Republic of Austria.
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,
    p. 1.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/29)
Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of                    By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/02: Commission of the European
                         (Case C-345/03)                                Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                         (2003/C 226/27)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/30)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
1.   declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 register of Case C-407/02: Commission of the European
     Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            Communities v Hellenic Republic.
     of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehi-
     cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
     obligations under that directive;
2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/31)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
21 April 2002.                                                          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-10/03: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Republic of Finland.
(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Stockholms Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm) by order of that court of 18 September 1998 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman) v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP) (Case C-405/98) (1999/C 1/17)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                 1. Is a person who is employed by an undertaking (a
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, by order of that                    company in the form of a Besloten Vennootschap
court of 11 March 1998, in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                (private limited company) incorporated under
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       Netherlands law) which has its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State (the Netherlands) and maintains an
                       and Mario Pittaro                                office there but performs its activities primarily in the
                                                                        territory of another Member State and in the past has
                        (Case C-402/98)                                 performed them exclusively in the latter Member State
                         (1999/C 1/15)                                  (in this case, the carrying out of building projects in
                                                                        Germany) a person employed in the territory of the
                                                                        first Member State (Article 13(2)(a) of Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in the version of 2 June
                                                                        1983 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 8.)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Lazio Regional
Administrative Court) of 11 March 1998, which was                   2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 1998, for                 there a posting' within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a)
a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 where a
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       building contractor with its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State employs its employees primarily on
and Mario Pittaro, on the following question:                           building projects in another Member State and has
                                                                        employed them exclusively there in the past over a
                                                                        number of years but the anticipated duration of each
                                                                        individual building project does not exceed twelve
By introducing innovative arrangements for the rules on                 months?
premiums for the production of tobacco when planting
had already been carried out and producers had made
investments in accordance with reasonable assessment
criteria based on the Community rules in force at the time
of sowing and planting out in the fields, do Article 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 (1) Article 20 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 (2) and Article 2             Reference for a preliminary ruling by Stockholms
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 (3), infringe              Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm) by order of
the principles governing sound organisation of the                  that court of 18 September 1998 in the case of
agricultural market in tobacco and the principle of                 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
protection of legitimate expectations?                                  v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP)
                                                                                (Case C-405/98)
(1) OJ L 73, 1.4.1995, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 5.                                                             (1999/C 1/17)
(3) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 11.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of 18 September 1998
                                                                    Stockholms Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm),
                                                                    which was received at the Court Registry on 16 November
                                                                    1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP) on the
Bundesgerichtshof, by order of that court of 29 October             following questions:
1998, in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK Rheinland,
                   Cologne Regional Office
                        (Case C-404/98)                             1. Is Article 30 or Article 59 of the Treaty of Rome to be
                                                                        interpreted as precluding national legislation entailing
                         (1999/C 1/16)                                  a general prohibition of alcohol advertising, such as
                                                                        the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                        Alkoholreklamlagen?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof              2. If so, can such a prohibition be regarded as justified
(Federal Court of Justice) of 29 October 1998, received at              and proportionate for the protection of life and health
the Court Registry on 16 November 1998, for a                           of humans?
preliminary ruling in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK
Rheinland, Cologne Regional Office, on the following
questions:


title: Case C-650/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux — France) — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 39 and 49 — European Parliament — Elections — Right to vote — Citizenship of the European Union — Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law — National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux — France) — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde
   (Case C-650/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 39 and 49 - European Parliament - Elections - Right to vote - Citizenship of the European Union - Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law - National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994))
   (2015/C 389/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thierry Delvigne

      Defendants: Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 39(2) and the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, by operation of law, from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament persons who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, were convicted of a serious crime and whose conviction became final before 1 March 1994.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 5 December 1997 in Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union v. Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus (Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
2.5.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 137/5
sugar following the introduction of the Combined                      Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne Ð on the
Nomenclature (3), and on the interpretation of Chapter 30             interpretation of Article 39(1) of the Cooperation
of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by Annex I               Agreement between the European Economic Community
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987                and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                 Algiers on 26 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
Common Customs Tariff (4) Ð the Court (Fourth                         Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                 26 September 1978 (2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Fourth                composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray (Rapporteur),              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and G. F. Mancini, Judges; F. G.
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
12 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 which it has ruled:
products consisting of ingredients identical to those                 There is no need to reply to the question referred.
contained in Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit and Sarvit and
in the same proportions cannot be classified within                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature as                          (2) OJ L 263, 27.9.1978, p. 1.
established in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and
consequently do not come within the scope of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying
down general rules for the production refund on certain
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
sugar products used in the chemical industry, as amended
by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/                                         (First Chamber)
88 of 13 June 1988 amending certain regulations                                            of 5 December 1997
concerning the application of the common market
organisation for sugar following the introduction of the              in Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union v.
Combined Nomenclature.                                                           Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus (1)
                                                                                (Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(1 ) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
(2 ) OJ L 94, 9.4.1986, p. 9.                                                                 (98/C 137/10)
(3 ) OJ L 152, 18.6.1988, p. 23.
(4 ) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 In Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union
                                                                      (Agents: Amadeu Lopes Sabino and Diego Canga Fano
                         (Sixth Chamber)                              and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð appeal against the judgment of
                       of 12 March 1998                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
                                                                      First Chamber, of 16 April 1997, in Case T-80/96 Leite
in Case C-314/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Mateus v. Council [1997] ECR II-259, seeking to have
the Tribunal des affaires de securiteÂ sociale, Evry): Ourdia         that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
   Djabali v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne (1)        being Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus, residing in
(EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement Ð Article 39(1) Ð                  Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social                Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
security Ð Disabled adults' allowance Ð Reference for a               Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                       preliminary ruling)                            in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
                                                                      Cessange Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of M.
                          (98/C 137/09)                               Wathelet, President of Chambers, D. A. O. Edward and L.
                                                                      Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General;
                 (Language of the case: French)                       R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 December 1997,
                                                                      the operative part of which is as follows:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    1. the appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                      2. the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case C-314/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des
affaires de securiteÂ sociale (Social Security Court), Evry           (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Ourdia Djabali and


title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Fintecna SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-193/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 16/ 15
established in Termoli ( Italy), Societâ Fondiaria Industriale       Pursuant to Article 92 ( 3 ) of the Treaty, the Commission
Romagnola SpA ( SFIR ), established in Cesena ( Italy),              made the authorization of that aid subject to a number of
Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, established in Pontelagoscuro                  conditions, some entailing specific legal obligations of a
( Italy ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, and by        highly restrictive nature, with which the applicant must
Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with           comply. In particular, the applicant is required to:
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against the
Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jan-Peter Hix and           — reduce Iritecna's liquidation debts by selling all its assets
Marco-Umberto Moricca ) — application for suspension of                  to (private ) third parties and assigning the proceeds to
the operation of Article 1 ( f) of Council Regulation ( EC )             cover those debts,
No 1534/95 of 29 June 1995 fixing, for the 1995/96
marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white            — assign the entire proceeds of that sale, to be set off
sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum                 against Iritecna's debts, even if those proceeds exceed the
prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for              amount forecast in the decision; the Commission
storage costs ( OJ No L 148 , p . 11 ) — the President of the            estimated that the privatization of Fintecna might raise
Court of First Instance made an order on 7 November 1995 ,
                                                                         Lit 1 653 billion, matching the price paid by Fintecna for
the operative part of which is as follows:                               the Iritecna shares .
1 . the application for the adoption of interim measures is
      dismissed:                                                     The applicant claims, first, that the Commission cannot
                                                                     require it to reduce the aid deriving from Iritecna's
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          liquidation by selling all its assets to private third parties and
                                                                     setting the proceeds against Iritecna's debts. The applicant
                                                                     maintains that the aid in question was directly
                                                                     proportionate to the liquidation and restructuring effected
                                                                     and could therefore be authorized in accordance with the
                                                                     criteria laid down by the Commission itself concerning State
                                                                     aids for the restructuring of undertakings .
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Fintecna SpA
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-193/95                              Secondly, the applicant submits that, even assuming that it
                                                                     was under an obligation to help reduce Iritecna's debts, the
                           ( 96/C 16/34 )
                                                                     Commission has made its performance of that obligation
                                                                     subject to conditions which are excessively restrictive and
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                    totally unjustified.
                                   %
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    As regards the need to prevent the distortion of competition,
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995              the applicant points out that the sacrifices made in terms of
by Fintecna SpA, whose registered office is in Rome (Italy),         reducing the group's economic capacity more than qualify
represented by Professor Antonio Tizzano and Gian                    for the aid in question. Furthermore, that aid merely covered
Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for         the costs directly connected with the restructuring and
service in Brussels at the Chambers of Professor Tizzano,            liquidation of Iritecna , and did not finance any other
36 Place du Grand Sablon .                                           intervention liable to distort competition.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Nor can it be contended that the contested conditions are
— annul Article 1 (4 ) of the contested Decision,
                                                                     justifiable in view of the fact that the undertaking's property
                                                                     is publicly, not privately, owned. That would be contrary to
                                                                     the principle of equal treatment of private and public
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             undertakings laid down by Articles 222 and 90 of the
                                                                     Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a company in which the IRI has a 100%                 Lastly, the applicant asserts that, in the present case, the
controlling interest and to which the assets of Iritecna ( an        Commission should merely have verified that, of all the
IRI subholding, subsequently placed in liquidation), which           various possible options, the plan drawn up by the holding
were either economically viable or potentially such if               company ( IRI ) constituted the most reasonable choice from
removed from Iritecna during its restructuring, were                 the financial point of view.
transferred for Lit 1 653 billion, seeks the partial annulment
of the Commission's Decision of 7 June 1995 concerning aid
of approximately ECU 2 116 million granted to Iritecna by
the Italian State .


title: Case T-288/02: Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute of Technology against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.11.2002
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the application for           principle of sound administration in that it did not ascertain
sition Division:               registration                               the powers of the director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
                                                                          Research and Development’, which is merely a department of
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal        the applicant with no legal personality.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              —    since the word ‘mou’ in Lao-
                                    tian and Thai means ‘porc’,
                                    the trade mark ‘MOU’ is
                                    merely descriptive and thus
                                    may not be protected;
                                                                          Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute
                               —    registration of the trade             of Technology against Commission of the European
                                    mark ‘MOU’ would in fact                                        Communities
                                    prevent the use of a word
                                    with meaning which must be
                                    used in order to describe the                                 (Case T-288/02)
                                    nature of the product to be
                                    sold.                                                         (2002/C 289/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of Technology against Commission of the European                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                     European Communities on 23 September 2002 by the Asian
                                                                          Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
                        (Case T-287/02)                                   Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
                                                                          lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                        (2002/C 289/59)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                                22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       the alleged director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Research and Development’ (CEERD) of the Asian Insti-
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by the Asian                          tute of Technology.
Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
—      annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July            research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment
       2000 to conclude a research contract with the director of          Research and Development’, allegedly represented by its direc-
       the ‘Center Energy-Environment Research and Develop-               tor. That centre is a department of the applicant with no legal
       ment’ (CEERD) of the Asian Institute of Technology.                personality. The applicant further states that the person
                                                                          who signed the contract as director of the ‘Center Energy-
                                                                          Environment Research and Development’ left the department
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           on 31 December 2001. The contract was a follow-up contract
                                                                          to that at issue in Case T-287/02.
The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment                     According to the applicant, the alleged director of the ‘Center
Research and Development’, represented by its director. That              Energy-Environment Research and Development’ had no man-
centre is a department of the applicant with no legal person-             date to conclude such a contract. The Commission thus
ality.                                                                    infringed the principle of sound administration in that it did
                                                                          not ascertain the powers of the director nor whether the
According to the applicant, the director of the ‘Center Energy-           person concerned was in fact a director.
Environment Research and Development’ had no mandate to
conclude such a contract. The Commission thus infringed the


title: Case F-46/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Skareby v Commission

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/39

         Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-46/06)
   (2006/C 143/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carina Skareby (Bichkek, Kyrgyzstan) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 25 January 2006 responding to the applicant's complaint, and the career development report (CDR) compiled with respect to her for the period 1 January to 31 December 2004;

               —

               Award the applicant damages for the harm to her career and for the material and non-material harm suffered, in an amount assessed in part by the applicant at EUR 20 000, the remaining part to be assessed by the Tribunal on equitable principles;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her application, the applicant first alleges failure to comply with the rules relating to the establishment of the CDR. The authorities infringed the rules of procedure laid down by the General Implementing Rules for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, made manifest errors of assessment and failed to comply with the duty to give reasons.
   The applicant also pleads breach of the rights of the defence, of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and of the principle of sound administration.
   Lastly, she claims that the authorities are guilty of a misuse of powers and of an abuse of process.


title: Case C-440/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Republic of Poland), lodged on 11 November 2009 — Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych v Stanisława Tomaszewska

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Republic of Poland), lodged on 11 November 2009 — Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych v Stanisława Tomaszewska
   (Case C-440/09)
   2010/C 37/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych

      Respondent: Stanisława Tomaszewska

      Question referred

   Is Article 45(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), in conjunction with Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159), to be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a Member State is required — on establishing that a worker has failed to satisfy the condition of having completed in that Member State a period of insurance which is sufficient under the law of that State for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension — to take account of a period of insurance completed in another Member State in such a way that it must recalculate the period of insurance on which acquisition of entitlement depends by applying the rules arising from national law and treating the period completed in the other Member State as a period completed in its own State, or must it add the period completed in the other Member State to the national period calculated previously on the basis of the rules in question?


title: Case C-241/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) by decision of that court of 9 May 2005 in Nicolae Bot v Préfecture du Val-de-Marne

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) by decision of that court of 9 May 2005 in Nicolae Bot v Préfecture du Val-de-Marne
   (Case C-241/05)
   (2005/C 193/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Conseil d'Etat (Council of State) (France), of 9 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Nicolae Bot and Préfecture du Val-de-Marne.
   The Conseil d'Etat asks the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the question of what is meant by ‘date of first entry’ in terms of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and, in particular, whether any entry taking place at the end of a period of six months during which there has been no other entry into the territory, as well as, in the case of an alien who carries out multiple entries for stays of short duration, any entry immediately following the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the last known ‘first entry’, should be regarded as a ‘first entry’ into the territory of the States which are party to that convention.


title: Joined Cases T-211/06, T-213/06, T-245/06, T-155/07 and T-178/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME)
   (Joined Cases T-211/06, T-213/06, T-245/06, T-155/07 and T-178/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)
   2009/C 153/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, J. Schouman, A. Jacquet and L. Paudrat, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent.)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May (Case R 0068/2006-1), 12 June (Case R 0066/2006-1), 5 July 2006 (Case R 0067/2006-1), 28 February (Case R 1046/2006-1) and 15 March 2007 (Case R 0067/2006-1), concerning registration of the signs CYBERGESTION (Case T-213/06), CYBERCREDIT (Case T-211/06), CYBERGUICHET (Case T-245/06), CYBERBOURSE (Case T-155/07) and CYBERHOME (Case T-178/07) as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The actions are dismissed;

               2.

               Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-637/13: Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/37

         Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)
   (Case T-637/13)
   2014/C 52/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 1434/2012-4;

               —

               Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO’ in black, red, gold, white, light sky blue, dark sky blue, yellow and light green for goods in Classes 30, 32, and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 273 884

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR


title: Case C-104/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Council of the European Union v Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), European Commission (Appeal — External relations — Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning liberalisation measures on agricultural and fishery products — Decision approving the conclusion of an international agreement — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Locus standi — Territorial scope of the agreement — Interpretation of the agreement — Principle of self-determination — Principle of the relative effect of treaties)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/19

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Council of the European Union v Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), European Commission
   (Case C-104/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - External relations - Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning liberalisation measures on agricultural and fishery products - Decision approving the conclusion of an international agreement - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Territorial scope of the agreement - Interpretation of the agreement - Principle of self-determination - Principle of the relative effect of treaties))
   (2017/C 053/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, avocat), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Paasivirta and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and B. Fodda, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. Figueiredo, acting as Agents), Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Struys, A. Bailleux, L. Eskenazi and R. Hicheri, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 December 2015, Front Polisario v Council (T-512/12, EU:T:2015:953);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by the Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) as inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders the Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the European Commission and the Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-184/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2012 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post with entitlement to old-age pension — Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations — Requirement for precision in the appeal — New plea in law — Effective judicial protection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — No obligation on the court to raise of its own motion a plea alleging infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2012 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-184/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Removal from post with entitlement to old-age pension - Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations - Requirement for precision in the appeal - New plea in law - Effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - No obligation on the court to raise of its own motion a plea alleging infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period)
   2012/C 194/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and P.-F. Onimus, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy, J. Vermer and K. Zavřelová, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2011 in Case F-77/09 Nijs v Court of Auditors, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


No C 77/ 10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 3 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-108/95 (')                   from the register of Case C-252/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 77/22 )                              European Communities v. French Republic .
By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of             f 1 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/95 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( 1 )
                                                                                96/C 77/25 )
                                                                       By order of 6 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Removal from the register of Case C-316/94 (')                   from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( reference for a
                           ( 96/C 77/23 )                              preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
                                                                       Caen ): criminal proceedings against Dominique Luback.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
from the register of Case C-316/94 ( reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
Bruxelles ): Belgian State v. Turner International Sales Ltd
and Coditel Brabant SA .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/95 ( )
(') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 96/C 77/26 )
                                                                       By order of 19 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C- 162/95 ( reference for a
      Removal from the register of Case C-252/95 ( )                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Nancy ):
                           ( 96/C 77/24 )                              criminal proceedings against Philippe Baumert and Jean
                                                                       Loup Dirler.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
                     of 1 February 1996                                Commission of 6 October 1994 requiring the applicant to
in Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert v. Commission of the
                                                                       repay the sum of Bfr 215 354 unduly paid by way of
                                                                       household allowance and, second, an order requiring the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Commission to repay the sums deducted from the
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue                   applicant's salary since November 1994, together with
                              payment)                                 default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum — the Court of
                           ( 96/C 77/27 )                              First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
                                                                       President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges;
                                                                       B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February
                                                                       1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1.    Dismisses the action .
In Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert, an official of the                  2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Kraainem       ( Belgium ),       represented     by     Georges
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —


C 48/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-193/95 (1)              and Case T-206/97 Olivier Brunet, Luigi Brusa, Peter
                        (1999/C 48/68)                             Cavendish, HeÂleÁne Chraye, Stella da Costa Santos,
                                                                   Tamara Diomede Basili, Christina Laso Sanz, GeÂrard
                                                                   Lhost, Carlos Martinez Mongay, Viriato Monteiro Da
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   Silva, Nicolioulas Panagiotis, Carla Piccinni-Leopardi,
                                                                   Jorge Manuel Pinheiro De Jesus Ferreira, Angelo Salsi and
By order of 30 November 1998, the President of the First           Graham Willmott v. Commission of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Communities.
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-193/95: Fintecna SpA v. Commission of the                   (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997, OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, OJ C 181,
European Communities.                                                  14.6.1997, OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, OJ C 318, 18.10.1997 and
                                                                       OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-292/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-25/97 ( )1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/71)
                        (1999/C 48/69)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 1 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
By order of 14 December 1998, the President of the First           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               removal from the register of Case T-292/97: Assidomän
Case T-25/97: Michael Pulch v. Commission of the                   Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesunds Bruk, Korsnäs AB,
European Communities.                                              Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                   Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-38/97,
T-77/97, T-107/97, T-139/97, T-154/97, T-162/97,
                  T-205/97 and T-206/97 (1)                                Removal from the register of Case T-67/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/70)                                                     (1999/C 48/72)
               (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: French)
By order of 15 December 1998 the President of the First            By order of 11 December 1998, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ruled that the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of
following cases be removed from the register: Case                 Case T-67/98: TheÂodore Giannakopoulos v. Commission
T-38/97 Lucette GeÂrard, Case T-77/97 JoseÂ Baiges Planas,         of the European Communities.
Viviane Baretti-Piazzi, David Broderick, Alessandro
Buttice, Peter Grasmann, Timothy Hayes, Louis Hersom,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 4.7.1998.
Owen Jones, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot, Saturno Mallia,
Fenardo Mazza, Yasmine Pire, William Richer, Josefa
Rodriguez Portero, Robert Smyth, Alain Van Hamme and
Fionnuala Walker, Case T-107/97 Suzanne Smetes, Case
T-139/97 Marc Blijweert, Manuel Carvalhosa, Rita
Lehmann, Annette Mills, Glenys Nichol, Jeffery Piper,
Francisco Sentieiro and Guy Thiry, Case T-154/97 Patricia                 Removal from the register of Case T-140/98 (1)
Brunko-Metzger, Mariette Colinet, Christiane Degueldre,                                    (1999/C 48/73)
Nicole Dumont, Emile Espagnet, Paul Fraix, Georgios
Katalagarianakis, Danielle Lardinois, Carlos Alberto Leite
Mateus, Liborio Licata, Alberto Piazzi, Cornelis Pot, Rita                         (Language of the case: French)
Sacca-George, Jacques Simon and Harry Waterschoot,
Case T-162/97 Albert Verleysen, Case T-205/97                      By order of 9 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
Christopher Atkin, David Cornwell and Paul Smeulders               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-454/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt, Austria) — pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v Republik Österreich (Bund), APA-OTS Originaltext — Service GmbH, APA Austria Presse Agentur registrierte Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Public procurement — Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Concept of award of a contract )

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt, Austria) — pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v Republik Österreich (Bund), APA-OTS Originaltext — Service GmbH, APA Austria Presse Agentur registrierte Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
   (Case C-454/06) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 92/50/EEC - Procedures for the award of public service contracts - Concept of ‘award of a contract’)
   (2008/C 209/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesvergabeamt, Austria
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH

      Defendants: Republik Österreich (Bund), APA-OTS Originaltext — Service GmbH, APA Austria Presse Agentur registrierte Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesvergabeamt — Interpretation of Article 82 EC, of Article 3(1), Articles 8 and 9 and Article 11(3)(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), of Article 1(3) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) and of general principles of Community law — Contract for services of indefinite duration concluded on behalf of the State with a press agency, regarded as the sole national press agency, outside the procedures for awarding public contracts — Transfer, with the consent of the contracting authority, of performance of various parts of the contract to a company entirely controlled by the service provider, and other contract amendments concerning waiver of the right to termination of the contract by contracting authority, payment for the services provided and the rebate granted to the contracting authority — Whether those subsequent amendments are to be classified as a new ‘contract award’ necessitating prior publication of a contract notice
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The terms ‘awarding’ and ‘awarded’, used in Articles 3(1), 8 and 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, must be interpreted as not covering a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where services supplied to the contracting authority by the initial service provider are transferred to another service provider established as a limited liability company, the sole shareholder of which is the initial service provider, controlling the new service provider and giving it instructions, provided that the initial service provider continues to assume responsibility for compliance with the contractual obligations.

               2.

               The terms ‘awarding’ and ‘awarded’, used in Articles 3(1) and 8 and 9 of Directive 92/50, must be interpreted as not covering an adjustment of the initial agreement to accommodate changed external circumstances, such as the conversion to euros of prices initially expressed in national currency, the minimal reduction in the prices in order to round them off, and the reference to a new price index where provision was made in the initial agreement to replace the price index fixed previously.

               3.

               The terms ‘awarding’ and ‘awarded’, used Articles 3(1), 8 and 9 of Directive 92/50, must be interpreted as not covering a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a contracting authority, through the use of a supplemental agreement, agrees with the contractor, during the period of validity of a contract concluded with it for an indefinite period, to renew for a period of three years a waiver of the right to terminate the contract by notice, the waiver no longer being in force at the time of the amendment, and agrees with it to lay down higher rebates than those initially provided for in respect of certain volume-related prices within a specified area of supply.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-61/13: Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Melt Water v OHIM (NUEVA)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/29

         Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Melt Water v OHIM (NUEVA)

   (Case T-61/13)
   2013/C 108/74
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by V. Viešiūnaitė, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 in Case R 1794/2012-4 and treat the applicant’s appeal relating to the trade mark NUEVA (Application No 010573541) as having been filed;

               —

               award costs in favour of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: the figurative mark NUEVA for goods in Class 32 — Application No 010573541 for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Examiner: application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal deemed not to have been filed

      Pleas in law: in the contested decision of 3 December 2012, the defendant wrongly held that the appeal lodged by the applicant had to be deemed not to have been filed, pursuant to Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and Rule 49(3) of Regulation No 2868/95, (2) on the ground that the fee for the appeal had not been paid within the prescribed period. The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s position, according to which that fee had to be paid within the two-month period prescribed for filing a notice of appeal. The applicant submits that it is evident both from the examiner’s decision to reject the application for a trade mark and from the official translation into Lithuanian of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009 that the fee for the appeal has to be linked to the filing of the statement setting out the grounds of the appeal, and not to the filing of the notice of appeal. The applicant was therefore justified in linking payment of the appeal fee to the period for filing the statement setting out the grounds of the appeal, and it made that payment within that period.
   In the applicant’s view, the Lithuanian translation of Regulation No 207/2009 must be regarded as authentic and the determination as to whether the appeal fee paid by the applicant to the defendant was received in time has to be based on the Lithuanian text of that regulation. The applicant also points out that in the case where an authentic text in the language of a specific Member State — in this case, the Lithuanian text — is ambiguous and its translation does not correspond to the texts in other languages, the measure must, with a view to ensuring legal certainty and accuracy, be interpreted in such a way that it corresponds as closely as possible to the interests of the person to whom it is addressed, in particular if a contrary interpretation might give rise to negative consequences for that person.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-326/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Rath v OHIM — AstraZeneca (VIXACOR)

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Rath v OHIM — AstraZeneca (VIXACOR)
   (Case T-326/05) (1)

   (2007/C 223/30)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-13/10: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Goutier v OHIM — Rauch (ARANTAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to give judgment)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/19

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Goutier v OHIM — Rauch (ARANTAX)
   (Case T-13/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to give judgment)
   2011/C 282/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.E. Happe, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by B. Schmidt and then by B. Schmidt and R. Pethke, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Norbert Rauch (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 November 2009 (Case R 1796/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Norbert Rauch and Klaus Goutier.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to give judgment in the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener will bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-15/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court) — by decision of that court of 21 December 2000 in the case of Paranova Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, K.G. NetPharma AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross Pharma AB and MedImport Scandinavia AB v Läkemedelsverket (Medical Products Agency)

text:
10.3.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrät-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
ten (Supreme Administrative Court) — by decision of                     richtshof by order of that court of 18 December 2000
that court of 21 December 2000 in the case of Paranova                  in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Unabhängiger
Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, K.G. Net-                                         Verwaltungssenat Wien
Pharma AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross
Pharma AB and MedImport Scandinavia AB v Läke-
          medelsverket (Medical Products Agency)                                                 (Case C-16/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/30)
                         (Case C-15/01)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                        hof (Administrative Court of Appeal) of 18 December 2000
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January 2001,
                         (2001/C 79/29)                                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Paul Dieter Haug
                                                                        against Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Independent
                                                                        Administrative Chamber for Vienna) on the following ques-
                                                                        tions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
                                                                        1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
— of 21 December 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                             18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
Registry on 15 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
case of Paranova Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum
                                                                             and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
AB, K.G. NetPharma AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical
                                                                             consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
AB, Cross Pharma AB and MedImport Scandinavia AB v
                                                                             Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
Läkemedelsverket on the following questions:
                                                                             2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
                                                                             munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
                                                                             and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC to revoke a                 labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
     marketing authorisation for a medicinal product import-                 foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     ed as a parallel import on the ground that the marketing                human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     authorisation for the directly imported medicinal product               ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     has been revoked at the request of the holder of the                    offence when marketing foodstuffs:
     authorisation for reasons unconnected with the safety of
     the medicinal product? Does the answer depend on what                   (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
     specific reasons have given rise to that request or on                        in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
     whether the holder of the authorisation or companies                          inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
     belonging to the same group in other Member States                            tain health, or to create the impression of any such
     continue to sell the medicinal product to which the                           effect;
     parallel imports relate on the basis of marketing authoris-
     ations granted there?
                                                                             (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;
2.   If the parallel importers rely on a new marketing authoris-             (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
     ation for a directly imported medicinal product rather                        tations of organs of the human body, pictures
     than on the old marketing authorisation, is authorisation                     of members of the health-care professions or of
     for the continued marketing of the medicinal product                          sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
     imported as a parallel import precluded by the fact                           to health-care activities?
     that that medicinal product and the directly imported
     medicinal product which is covered by the new marketing
                                                                        2.   Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
     authorisation are different in the sense that the medicinal
                                                                             preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
     product imported as a parallel import is sold in the form
     of a capsule containing a certain acid (omeprazole) while               circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
                                                                             mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
     the directly imported medicinal product is sold in the
                                                                             affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
     form of a tablet containing a magnesium salt of the acid?
                                                                             competent federal minister, whereby a condition of
                                                                             authorisation is that the health-related information is
                                                                             consistent with protecting the consumer from being
                                                                             misled?


title: Removal from the register of T-225/97

text:
C 41/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.2.98
Ð the Commission knew of, or could not in any event                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of
    have been unaware of, the dangerous nature of                   Case T-173/96: Teresa Maria Rodrigues Gomes de
    asbestos generally, and, in particular, the danger which        Oliveira v. Commission of the European Communities.
    it represented for persons performing tasks of an
    administrative nature and archive work in a building            (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
    contaminated with asbestos;
Ð the Commission knew that it lacked sufficient staff to
    monitor compliance with safety and hygiene standards
    generally and the protection measures applicable
    during the course of maintenance works.                         Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-176/96 and
                                                                                T-108/97 (1)
The unlawfulness of the conduct in question also results                                    (98/C 41/49)
from a disregard of the principles, rights and guarantees                          (Language of the case: French)
contained in the European Social Charter. Those
principles, rights and guarantees constitute general                By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the First
principles of Community law with which the Community                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
authorities are required to comply and which the                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Community judicature is required to monitor. On the                 Joined Cases T-176/96 and T-108/97, Cornelis Volger v.
basis of that Charter, the applicant claims that all workers        European Parliament.
are entitled to safety and hygiene at work, that all persons
are entitled to the benefit of all such measures as will            (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996 and OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
enable them to enjoy the best possible state of health and
that it is necessary, in so far as may be possible, to prevent
epidemic, endemic and other illnesses. In the present case,
the applicant's rights were disregarded and no measures
were taken to prevent diseases caused by contact with
asbestos.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-225/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 41/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 17 December 1997, the President of the
                                                                    Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
          Removal from the register of T-173/96 (1)                 European Communities ordered the removal from the
                          (98/C 41/48)                              register of Case T-225/97: Asia Motor France SA, Jean-
                                                                    Michel Cesbron, Monin Automobiles SA and Europe Auto
                (Language of the case: French)                      Service (EAS) SA v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities.
By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Joined Cases C-51/12 to C-54/12: Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Procura della Repubblica v Xiamie Zhu, Guo Huo Xia, Xie Fmr Ye, Jian Hui Luo, Ua Zh Th

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Procura della Repubblica v Xiamie Zhu, Guo Huo Xia, Xie Fmr Ye, Jian Hui Luo, Ua Zh Th
   (Joined Cases C-51/12 to C-54/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/45
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.