               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/26

         Removal from the register of Case C-197/02 (1)

   (2004/C 273/50)
   By order of 29 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-197/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case C-174/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/16

         Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union
   (Case C-174/17 P)
   (2017/C 161/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á.M. Almendros Manzano and P. Giusta, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA), Armando Álvarez S.A. and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

               —

               dismiss as unfounded the claim brought by ASPLA and Armando Álvarez at first instance seeking payment of an amount of EUR 3 495 038,66 as compensation for the damage they claim to have suffered as a result of the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time;

               —

               order ASPLA and Armando Álvarez to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of causal relationship, in that the General Court held that the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time was the determining cause of the alleged material damage, consisting of the payment of the bank guarantee charges, whereas, in accordance with settled case-law, the determining cause of the payment of those charges is the choice made by an undertaking itself not to pay the fine during the proceedings before the EU judicature.

               2.

                  The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of damage, in that the General Court did not apply to the alleged material damage resulting from the payment of the bank guarantee charges the same condition which it imposed in respect of the alleged material damage resulting from the payment of interest on the fine, namely, that the applicants at first instance had to show that the financial burden resulting from the latter payment was greater than the advantage conferred on them by not paying the fine.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt by order of that court of 22 November 1996 in the case of Anders Sjöberg v. Public Prosecutor (Case C-387/96)

text:
No C 26 /6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 .  . 97
       before the entry into force of the Regulation to the                   on the approximation of the laws of the Member
       common organization of the market and are not                           States relating to the labelling, presentation and
       caused by a lack of care on the part of the traders                    advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
       concerned.                                                             consumer (!), if he puts foodstuffs on the market in
                                                                              the Federal Republic of Germany which are labelled in
2 . The EC Treaty does not authorize national courts to                       Italian, French or English ?
       order provisional measures in proceedings for the
      grant of interim relief until such time as the                     2 . If not, does the trader satisfy the requirements of
       Commission has adopted an act with legal effect to                     Article 14 of Council Directive 79/ 112/EEC at least if
      deal, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation                       he places a supplementary sign in his shop at the
       (EEC) No 404/93 , with cases of hardship affecting                     location of the goods in question, containing the
      traders .
                                                                              prescribed particulars in German ?
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovratt
Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of                         by order of that court of 22 November 1996 in the case of
7 November 1996 in the case of Louisette Cordelle                                      Anders Sjoberg v. Public Prosecutor
                against Office National des Pensions                                               ( Case C-387/96)
                           ( Case C-366/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/11 )
                              ( 97/C 26/09 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Svea Hovratt
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                      ( Svea Court of Appeal ) of 22 November 1996, which was
Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 7 November 1996,                  received at the Court Registry on 27 November 1996, for
received at the Court Registry on 21 November 1996, for                  a preliminary ruling in the case of Anders Sjoberg v.
a preliminary ruling in the case of Louisette Cordelle                   Public Prosecutor on the following questions:
against Office National des Pensions on the following
question:
                                                                         1 . Is the derogation contained in Article 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
Having regard to the benefits paid in accordance with                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December
French law by the Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie                        1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
Nord Picardie and to the retirement pension payable                           relating to road transport ( ! ) applicable to the services
under Belgian law, is the rule preventing the overlapping                     run by Stockholm Lan Council using SL Buss AB ?
of benefits laid down by Article 52 of the Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 applicable in the light of the                          2 . According to Article 14 ( 5 ), drivers on services
Community rules ?                                                             mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) must carry an extract
                                                                              from the duty roster and a copy of the service
                                                                              timetable. Is it sufficient for the extract from the duty
                                                                              roster to cover only the journeys made on the day in
                                                                              question ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12. 1985 , p. 1 .
Aachen by order of that court of 6 November 1996 in the
administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef
                                 Goerres
                           ( Case C-385 /96 )
                              ( 97/C 26/ 10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   tungsgericht by order of that court of 25 September 1996
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht                      in the case of Aher-Waggon GmbH against the Federal
Aachen ( Aachen Local Court) of 6 November 1996 ,                                               Republic of Germany
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November                                            ( Case C-389/96 )
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative                                                  ( 97/C 26/ 12 )
penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres on the
following questions:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
1.    Does a trader act in accordance with Article 14 of                 the European Communities by order of the Bundes
      Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978                   verwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court) of


title: Case C-339/03: Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 226/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
A.    Can Article 3(a), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of               Does the term ‘contracts for the provision of [...] transport [...]
      Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a                 services’, in Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC (1) on the protec-
      general system for the recognition of higher-education               tion of consumers in respect of distance contracts, include
      diplomas awarded on completion of professional education             contracts for the provision of car hire services?
      and training of at least three years" duration (1) be con-
      strued in such a way as to permit restricted recognition by a
      host Member State of the professional qualifications of an
      applicant who possesses the diploma of Ingegnere civile
      idraulico [civil engineer specialising in hydraulics] (awarded       (1) Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      in Italy) and who wishes to pursue that profession in                    of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of
      another Member State whose legislation regulates the pro-                distance contracts — Statement by the Council and the Parliament
      fession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos [civil                re Article 6(1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3(1),
                                                                               first indent (OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19).
      engineer]? The question is based on the assumption that the
      latter profession comprises, in the host Member State, activ-
      ities which do not correspond in all cases to those covered
      by the applicant's diploma and that the evidence of educa-
      tion and training adduced by the applicant does not cover
      certain of the core matters which are generally required for
      the award of the qualification of Ingeniero de Caminos,              Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
      Canales y Puertos (civil engineer) in the host Member State.         the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
B.   Should the reply to the first question be in the affirmative,
     is it compatible with Articles 39 and 43 EC to restrict the                                     (Case C-339/03)
     right of applicants who seek to pursue their professions, in
     a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State                                         (2003/C 226/22)
     other than the one in which they were awarded their
     professional qualification, in such a way that the host               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     Member State is entitled to exclude, under its national               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     legislation, restricted recognition of professional qualifica-        Communities on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the
     tions where such a decision, which in principle implements            European Communities, represented by J.-C. Schieferer and
     Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC, entails the imposi-          M. Van Beek, members of the legal service of the Commission
     tion of certain additional, disproportionate requirements             of the European Communities, with an address for service in
     as regards pursuit of the profession?                                 Luxembourg.
     For these purposes, ‘restricted recognition’ is understood to
     mean that which authorises an applicant to work as an                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
     engineer only in the equivalent sector (hydraulics) of the            Court should:
     more general profession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y
     Puertos (civil engineer) regulated in the host Member State,          1.    find that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
     without requiring him to fulfil the additional requirements                 administrative provisions (in particular the laws, regula-
     laid down in Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC.                       tions and administrative provisions for the full implemen-
                                                                                tation of the Directive in the Bundesländer, with the
                                                                                exception of Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, and Baden-
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                   Württemberg Niedersachsen) necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999 relat-
                                                                                ing to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
                                                                                by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,
                                                                                the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 9 of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of                  2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court dated 21 July 2003, in the case of easyCar (UK)
                Ltd against Office of Fair Trading
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-336/03)
                                                                           The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                          (2003/C 226/21)                                  9 April 2002 without all the Bundesländer having adopted
                                                                           the necessary provisions.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 21 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of easyCar (UK) Ltd             (1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.
and Office of Fair Trading on the following question:


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 March 1999 in Case C-159/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA (Brussels Convention - Article 17 - Agreement conferring jurisdiction - Form according with usages in international trade or commerce)

text:
3.7.1999                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 188/3
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in                  and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini,
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996                   C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
L 148, p. 1) in so far as it registers the designation ‘Feta’ as a           L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger,
protected designation of origin — the Court, composed of                     Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March
P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de              1999, in which it has ruled:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnem-
alm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                    The third case mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 1999 in                   of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
which it:                                                                    and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
                                                                             as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession
1. Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June                   of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
     1996 on the registration of geographical indications and                Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as follows:
     designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to the extent to which           1. The contracting parties’ consent to the jurisdiction clause is
     it registered Feta as a protected designation of origin;                    presumed to exist where their conduct is consistent with a usage
                                                                                which governs the area of international trade or commerce in
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the                  which they operate and of which they are, or ought to have been,
     costs;                                                                      aware.
3. Orders the Hellenic republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                             2. The existence of a usage, which must be determined in relation
                                                                                to the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties to the
(1) OJ No C 318 of 26.10.1996, OJ No C 336 of 9.11.1996.                         contract operate, is established where a particular course of
                                                                                conduct is generally and regularly followed by operators in that
                                                                                branch when concluding contracts of a particular type.
                                                                                It is not necessary for such a course of conduct to be established
                                                                                in specific countries or, in particular, in all the Contracting
                                                                                States.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                A specific form of publicity cannot be required in all cases.
                           of 16 March 1999
                                                                                The fact that a course of conduct amounting to a usage is
in Case C-159/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        challenged before the courts is not sufficient to cause the conduct
the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Trasporti Castelletti                          no longer to constitute a usage.
  Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA (1)
                                                                             3. The specific requirements covered by the expression "form which
(Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Agreement conferring                         accords" must be assessed solely in the light of the commercial
jurisdiction — Form according with usages in international                       usages of the branch of international trade or commerce
                          trade or commerce)                                     concerned, without taking into account any particular require-
                                                                                ments which national provisions might lay down.
                            (1999/C 188/05)
                                                                             4. Awareness of the usage must be assessed with respect to the
                                                                                original parties to the agreement conferring jurisdiction, their
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                            nationality being irrelevant in this regard. Awareness of the
                                                                                usage will be established when, regardless of any specific form of
                                                                                publicity, in the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           operate a particular course of conduct is generally and regularly
                     in the European Court Reports)                              followed in the conclusion of a particular type of contract, so that
                                                                                it may be regarded as an established usage.
In Case C-159/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of              5. The choice of court in a jurisdiction clause may be assessed only
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                      in the light of considerations connected with the requirements
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                         laid down in Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of                           1968. Considerations about the links between the court desig-
Cassation), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   nated and the relationship at issue, about the validity of the
pending before that court between Trasporti Castelletti Spedi-                   clause, or about the substantive rules of liability applicable before
zioni Internazionali SpA and Hugo Trumpy SpA — on the                            the chosen court are unconnected with those requirements.
interpretation of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
1968, cited above (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                         (1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
amended version of the Convention at p. 77) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn


title: Case C-263/02 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 3 May 2002 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-177/01 between Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Appeal brought on 17 July 2002 by the Commission of the                  According to the new criterion developed by the Court of First
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                   Instance, a natural or legal person is to be regarded as
3 May 2002 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition,                   individually concerned by a Community measure of general
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                  application that concerns him directly if the measure in
ties in Case T-177/01 between Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA and                    question affects his legal position, in a manner which is both
       the Commission of the European Communities                        definite and immediate, by restricting his rights or by imposing
                                                                         obligations on him.
                        (Case C-263/02 P)
                         (2002/C 233/22)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 May 2002 by                That criterion is contrary to the judicial system established by
the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First           the Treaty. That system is complete and provides legal remedies
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-177/01                    and procedures which are designed to confer on the Court of
between Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA and the Commission of the                    Justice the power to review the legality of acts of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of                     institutions. Natural and legal persons are protected against
Justice of the European Communities on 17 July 2002 by the               the application to them of measures of general application
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   which they are unable to contest directly before the Court of
T. van Rijn and A. Bordes, with an address for service in                Justice on account of the restrictive terms of Article 230 of the
Luxembourg.                                                              Treaty: the legal remedies available to an individual consist of
                                                                         the right indirectly to challenge the validity of the provision at
The appellant claims that the Court should:                              issue in the context of an action contesting a measure
                                                                         implementing that provision (Article 241), an action for
—     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First             damages (Articles 236 and 288) or an action involving a
      Instance of the European Communities on 3 May 2002                 reference for a preliminary ruling (Article 234).
      in Case T-177/01;
—     either determine the present case itself, declaring the
      action for annulment of Regulation No 1162/2001 ( 1) to
      be inadmissible or, alternatively, refer the case back to
      the Court of First Instance;
                                                                         Moreover, the Court of First Instance erred in law by confusing
—     order the applicant in the proceedings at first instance to        the right to an effective remedy, which is fully recognised and
      pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings         protected, with a general right of direct recourse entitling
      before the Court of First Instance.                                individuals to bring proceedings for annulment of measures of
                                                                         general application. Neither the case-law of the Court of Justice
                                                                         nor that of the European Court of Human Rights places the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ‘right to an effective remedy’ on the same footing as a ‘right to
                                                                         bring a direct action’. Thus, it is not correct to say that the
                                                                         remedies available to individuals in order to challenge measures
The Commission advances two pleas in support of its appeal.              of general application can no longer be regarded, in the light
                                                                         of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the
First plea: infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the Court          Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
of First Instance, on the ground that the case should have been          and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as
referred to the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session.      guaranteeing persons the right to an effective remedy. Nor can
                                                                         any such assimilation be inferred from any of the constitutional
Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First            traditions common to the Member States. In most Member
Instance provides that, whenever the legal difficulty or the             States, the direct right of individuals to seek annulment of a
importance of the case or special circumstances so justify, a            measure of general application is circumscribed in various
case may be referred to the Court of First Instance sitting in           ways.
plenary session. In the present case, the Court of First Instance
decided an important issue in a manner which overturned a
long-standing body of case-law of the Court of Justice. The
absence of any referral to the Court of First Instance sitting in
plenary session results from a manifest error of assessment
which is open to censure by the Court of Justice.                        The Court of First Instance was incorrect in its view that,
                                                                         where a regulation is directly effective and directly applicable,
Second plea: infringement of Community law, on the ground                the only way in which an aggrieved party may bring the matter
that the Court of First Instance construed the notion of                 before a national court is by committing an infringement of
‘individual concern’, as enshrined in the fourth paragraph of            the law, and that individuals cannot be required to breach the
Article 230 EC, in a manner contrary to the judicial system              law in order to gain access to justice. However, that is the
established by the Treaty.                                               position in various national legal orders.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/15
Thus, the criticisms made by the Court of First Instance                     —       If not, on a proper construction of those directives is the
concerning the ineffectiveness of the legal remedies conferred                       court to uphold the interpretation of its law according to
on individuals by the Community legal order are without any                          which it is authorised to set aside a provision of its
foundation in law.                                                                   national law which prohibits the consumer or the court
                                                                                of its own motion from raising a plea of illegality
                                                                                vitiating the formation or extension of a consumer credit
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001                         agreement after a time-limit which derogates from the
     establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in                  general law, in so far as it constitutes an exceptional
     ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d,          restriction on the right of action of the consumer and
     e and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing            undermines the effectiveness of consumer protection?
     vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4).
                                                                             (1 ) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
                                                                                approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                                                                                visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
                                                                                L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 48).
                                                                             (2 ) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
                                                                                Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
                                                                                lations and administrative provisions of the Member States
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                          concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).
stance de Vienne by judgment of that Court of 5 July
2002 in the case of S.A. Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain
                             Sachithanathan
                            (Case C-264/02)
                            (2002/C 233/23)                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
                                                                             di Cassazione by order of that Court of 11 April 2002 in
                                                                                the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against Assitalia SpA
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance                                            (Case C-265/02)
de Vienne of 5 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
18 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.                                             (2002/C 233/24)
Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain Sachithanathan on the
following questions:
—      On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       EC ( 1) of 22 December 1986 and Council Directive 90/                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
       88/EC ( 2) of 22 February 1990 must the national court                Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 11 April 2002,
       uphold the interpretation of its law which requires lenders           received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2002, for a
       of consumer credit to inform the consumer-borrower in                 preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against
       writing of the current annual percentage charge before                Assitalia SpA on the following question:
       each extension of an agreement for credit renewable in
       instalments at an interest rate that is stipulated to be              ‘Is Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
       variable?                                                             1968, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                             the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
—      On a proper construction of those directives must the                 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
       national court uphold the interpretation of its law                   Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the
       which requires lenders of consumer credit to inform the               Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
       consumer of the clause concerning the variation of that               accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
       annual percentage charge before the extension of that                 Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
       agreement?                                                            accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                             and the Kingdom of Sweden, to be interpreted as subsuming
                                                                             under the expression “matters relating to a contract” the
—      On a proper construction of those directives is the
                                                                             obligation which a guarantor who paid customs duties under
       national court to uphold the interpretation of its law
                                                                             a guarantee obtained by the forwarding agent seeks to enforce
       which authorises it to allow, without any time-limit, a
                                                                             in legal proceedings by way of subrogation to the financial
       plea of illegality vitiating the formation or extension of a
                                                                             authorities and by way of recourse against the third-party
       consumer credit agreement, such as that arising from
                                                                             debtor who is the owner of the imported goods but was
       failure to state the annual percentage charge, raised by
                                                                             unconnected with the guarantee?’
       the consumer or by the court of its own motion, in a
       dispute arising from an action for payment brought by
       the lender?


title: Case T-581/10: Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Brawn (X-Undergear)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Brawn (X-Undergear)
   (Case T-581/10) (1)

   2012/C 151/59
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case T-97/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Imelios v Commission (Application for annulment — Action for damages — Fifth framework programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) — Arbitration clause — Debit note — Inadmissible)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Imelios v Commission
   (Case T-97/07) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Action for damages - Fifth framework programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) - Arbitration clause - Debit note - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 158/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Imelios SA (Velizy-Villacoublay, France) (represented by: C. Curtil, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Ladenburger and E. Manhaeve, agents)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the decision adopted by the Commission following an audit report by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to recover, by way of the debit note of 17 January 2007, payments made in the framework of the contract, reference number IST-1999-10934-Assist relating to the ‘Knowledge for Help Desk Operators’ programme, concluded in the context of the Fifth Framework Programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) in the field of user-friendly information, second, a request for payment of EUR 34 368 in respect of an instalment of a grant still to be paid under the contract and, third, a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Imelios SA is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/90

         Removal from the Register of Case T-407/03 (1)

   (2004/C 106/183)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 18 March 2004, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-407/03 Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.04.


title: Case T-297/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2009 — Mepos Electronics v OHIM (MEPOS)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2009 — Mepos Electronics v OHIM (MEPOS)
   (Case T-297/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/88

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2002 in Case T-236/02 R: Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Decision to reassign — Urgency — None)

text:
C 323/36               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.12.2002
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            INSTANCE
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 26 November 2001 of the Secretary
                     of 27 September 2002                                        General of the Commission, David O’Sullivan, to assign
                                                                                the applicant as adviser ad personam in the SG/F/1 Unit
                                                                                ‘Institutional development of the Union and Governance’
in Case T-236/02 R: Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the
                                                                                and that of 19 February 2002 to assign him, following
                    European Communities
                                                                                the reorganisation of the Secretariat General of the
                                                                                Commission, to SG/TF/AU 2;
(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Decision to
                 reassign — Urgency — None)
                                                                           —     annul the decisions of the Commission rejecting his
                                                                                application for the post of A 3 heads of unit in SG/B/2
                         (2002/C 323/59)                                         ‘Openness, access to documents, relations with civil
                                                                                society’ and appointing another person to that post;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-236/02 R: Luigi Marcuccio, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tricase,
Italy, represented by L. Garofalo, lawyer, against Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and                Pleas in law and main arguments
A. Dal Ferro) — application for an order (1) staying execution
of the decision reassigning an A 7/A 6 post, and its holder
Mr Luigi Marcuccio, in the Directorate-General for Develop-
ment, Delegation of the Commission to Luanda, Angola, to                   The applicant, an official in Grade A 4 at the Commission,
the Directorate-General for Development in Brussels and (2)                claims that it was unlawful for him not to have been appointed,
immediately reassigning Mr Marcuccio to the duties for which               as a priority, to the first vacant post as head of unit for which
he was previously responsible in the delegation — the President            he was qualified. Furthermore, the applicant was unlawfully
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 27 September               assigned, as adviser ad personam, to Unit SG/f.1 and, sub-
2002, in which he:                                                         sequently, to Unit SG/TF-AU 2. He claims that the duties
                                                                           carried out at present by the him since the adoption of the
                                                                           contested decisions do no correspond to the duties usually
1.    Dismissed the application for interim relief;                        carried out by an official in Grade A 4.
2.    Ordered that costs be reserved.
                                                                           In support of his claim he alleges:
                                                                           —     breach of redeployment procedure;
                                                                           —     breach of the procedure for filling vacant posts at middle-
Action brought on 27 September 2002 by Renaud Denuit                             management level;
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           —     breach of the principle that officials should have reason-
                         (Case T-306/02)                                         able career prospects;
                         (2002/C 323/60)
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     manifest error of assessment;
                                                                           —     breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        decisions are based.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 September 2002 by Renaud
Denuit, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats.


title: Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso Lourenço de Oliveira and Others against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Cases T-509/97 to T-517/97)

text:
C 166/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.5.98
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        Pleas in law and main arguments:
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of          those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,                    Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Fernando
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,       EugeÂnio de Abreu and Others against Council of the
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to              European Union and Commission of the European
    the date on which payment is actually made;                                            Communities
                                                                                (Cases T-518/97 to T-564/97)
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                                         (98/C 166/42)
    costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with             the Commission of the European Communities was
those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.                  Communities on 15 December 1997 by Fernando EugeÂnio
                                                                   de Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
                                                                   Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
                                                                   Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes              Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso LourencËo de                       severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
Oliveira and Others against Council of the European                    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the
  Union and Commission of the European Communities                     transitional and training measures necessary in the
               (Cases T-509/97 to T-517/97)                            sector to which the applicant belongs;
                       (98/C 166/41)
                                                                   Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                       severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                       compensation for the abovementioned damage,
                                                                       together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
An action against the Council of the European Union and                as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
the Commission of the European Communities was                         the date on which payment is actually made;
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes                 Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the
Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso LourencËo de                       costs.
Oliveira and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa            Pleas in law and main arguments:
Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda
                                                                   dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
                                                                   Action brought on 15 December 1997 by JoaÄo Luís de
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and                 Sousa Abreu and Others against Council of the European
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of                         Union and Commission of the European Communities
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,                                   (Cases T-565/97 to T-595/97)
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,                              (98/C 166/43)
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
    the date on which payment is actually made;                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
    costs.                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was


title: Case C-241/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Republic of Estonia) — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA) (EAGGF — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Community support for rural development — Support for agri-environmental production methods)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Republic of Estonia) — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)
   (Case C-241/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Community support for rural development - Support for agri-environmental production methods)
   2009/C 180/04
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: JK Otsa Talu OÜ

      Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Articles 22, 23, 24(1), 37(4) and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) — National legislation reserving agri-environmental support solely to applicants who have already been granted support in the previous year and excluding new applicants who commit themselves to organising their production in accordance with agri-environmental requirements

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 37(4) and 39 thereof, do not preclude a Member State from restricting, on account of insufficient budgetary resources, the class of recipients of rural development support to farmers already concerned by a decision to grant such support in the previous budgetary year.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.07.2007.


title: Case C-353/12: Action brought on 25 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/28

         Action brought on 25 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-353/12)
   2012/C 287/54
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Thomas, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision C(2009) 8123 of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA (notified on 29 October 2009 and published in OJ 2010 L 167, p. 39), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject of the Commission’s action is the non-implementation by the Italian Republic of the Commission’s decision on State aid in the form of a guarantee provided by the Ministry of Economic Development for a loan taken out by Ixfin with Banca Apulia SpA.
   The Commission points out that the Italian Republic should have ensured fulfilment of its obligation to recover the aid by 1 March 2010 and, in addition, should have informed the Commission by 29 December 2009 of the measures taken to implement the decision.
   At the time the present action was brought, the Italian Republic had not yet taken all the measures necessary for discharging those obligations.


title: Case C-242/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 — Land Hessen v Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 — Land Hessen v Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission
   (Case C-242/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees))
   (2016/C 462/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész and A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Land Hessen to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case C-482/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2015 by Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-333/13: Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/16

         Appeal brought on 9 September 2015 by Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-333/13: Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-482/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. C. Maier, Rechtsanwälten)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court in Case T-333/13 of 15 July 2015,

               —

               remit the case back to the General Court for further consideration,

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs,

         Alternatively, should the Court come to the conclusion that the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 has become devoid of purpose, due to the fact that the Other Party’s mark on which the opposition was based has been revoked in its entirety with effect of 13 June 2013, we kindly request the Court to:

               —

               declare that the present action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present Action is based on the following grounds:

               1.

               infringement of the principle of the rights of defense, in particular, of the right to be heard,

               2.

               infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and trial,

               3.

               infringement of Article 69 (c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

               4.

               infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1).

         The Applicant is of the opinion that its fundamental right to be heard has not been respected by the General Court as (1) the Registrar of the General Court informed the Applicant on 3 July 2015 that the Applicant’s submission — informing the General Court that the trademark forming the basis of the opposition ex tunc no longer exists — could not be taken into consideration and (2) as the judgment of the General Court issued on 15 July 2015 did not mention at all the fact that the other party’s trade mark on which the opposition was mainly based no longer existed at the time of the judgment.
   The Applicant is of the opinion that its fundamental right to a fair trial has been violated by the General Court as (1) the General Court denied the Applicant’s request for a stay of the proceedings and consequently ignored the fact, that the request for revocation filed by the Applicant on 13 June 2013, as well as the cancellation request based on absolute ground filed by the Applicant on 5 January 2015 against the other party’s trade mark, are legitimate means of defense which impact directly on the outcome of the present proceedings and (2) as the General Court refused to take the Applicant’s observations of 12 June 2015 into consideration.
   The Applicant is of the opinion that the General Court infringed Article 69 (c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court when it rejected both requests by the Applicant to stay the proceedings without any explanation, although in both cases the Defendant did not have any objections against such a stay of the proceedings and the Applicant provided substantial reasons why a stay of the proceedings appeared necessary.
   The Applicant is of the opinion that the General Court infringed Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR as it erred in law and distorted relevant facts of the case since the assessment of likelihood of confusion was based on a mark which was revoked on 22 May 2015, with effect from 13 June 2013; thus before the Applicant filed its action before the General Court on 17 June 2013, and before the General Court issued its decision. Consequently, at the time of the judgment on 15 July 2015, the other party’s Community trade mark No. 003915121, word/device:, could neither be taken into consideration nor could any conclusions be based on said mark.
   Finally, the Applicant requests the Court, should it conclude that the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 has become devoid of purpose, due to the fact that the other party’s mark on which the opposition was based has been revoked in its entirety with effect from 13 June 2013, to declare that the present action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

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


title: Case T-291/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO — Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/59

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO)
   (Case T-291/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO - Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action - Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/103
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: M. Lobato García-Miján and B. Díaz de Escauriaza, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: González Byass, SA (Cádiz, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA and González Byass, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2);

               2.

               orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  8 December 2005  in Case C-115/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/65/EC — Annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 December 2005
   in Case C-115/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/65/EC - Annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 36/34)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-115/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Braun) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 8 March 2005 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005


title: Case F-27/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Lofaro v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/35

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Lofaro v Commission
   (Case F-27/06)
   (2006/C 108/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 6 June 2005 to extend the applicant's probationary period by 6 months, of the decision of 28 September 2005 to dismiss him at the end of that period, and of the reports at the expiry of the probationary periods on which those two decisions are based;

               —

               So far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 23 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               An order that the defendant is to pay the applicant, as compensation for the loss suffered, damages assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 85 473 for material loss and EUR 50 000 for non-material loss, such amounts to be increased or reduced as appropriate during the proceedings;

               —

               An order that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former temporary agent at the Commission, was employed from 16 September 2004 until 15 September 2009 under a contract which provided for a probationary period of 6 months, in accordance with Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. Following an initial negative evaluation report, an extension of the probationary period by six months and a second negative evaluation report, the defendant ended that contract.
   In his application, the applicant submits that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment. It is likewise alleged to have infringed the general principles which safeguard the right to dignity and to a defence and to have made superfluous critical comments.


title: Case T-380/17: Action brought on 16 June 2017 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/48

         Action brought on 16 June 2017 — HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission
   (Case T-380/17)
   (2017/C 249/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) and Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler, M. Raible, U. Soltész, G. Wecker and H. Weiß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision of the European Commission C(2017) 1650 final of 5 April 2017 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission was not competent to decide on the Transaction since the transaction did not have a Union dimension. The Commission erred in law and infringed Art. 1 of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) by considering HeidelbergCement and Schwenk — rather than the direct acquirer Duna-Dráva Cement — as ‘undertakings concerned’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2 and 8 EUMR and committed manifest errors of assessment and violated its duty to state reasons in defining the relevant geographic market.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 2 (2) and (3) EUMR by prohibiting a transaction without establishing a significant impediment to effective competition in a substantial part of the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in the competitive assessment of the effects of the transaction.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and committed manifest errors of assessment in the assessment and rejection of the proposed remedy.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several procedural errors and thus violated essential procedural requirements, the Applicants’ rights of defence and their fundamental rights, as well as the principle of good administration and its duty of care.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to prohibit the acquisition of Cemex Hungary after it had referred the Hungarian part of the transaction for review by the Hungarian competition authority pursuant to Art. 4 (4) EUMR.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1).


title: Case C-419/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 275/40                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               Pleas in law and main arguments
      comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically               The time limit for transposing the directive expired on
      modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/               17 October 2002.
      220/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
17 October 2002.
                                                                                (Case C-419/03)
(1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/63)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 October
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                            of Luxembourg
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-418/03)
                                                                           1.    Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 275/62)                                       Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                                                                                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
                                                                                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) and, in
                                                                                any event, by not communicating them to the Com-
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                              mission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     obligations under that directive;
ties on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               The time limit for transposing the directive expired on
      Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           17 October 2002.
      the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) and, in
                                                                           (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
      any event, by not communicating them to the Com-
      mission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case C-514/99: Action brought on 29 December 1999 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.3.2000
therefore constitute a special non-contributory benefit within          The French Government maintains that, by merely citing the
the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result        conclusions of the SSC without even examining the need for
that where a person — as in the plaintiff’s case — meets the            fresh measures, and by confusing ‘the assessment of the risk’
conditions for that allowance after 1 June 1992, only the               with ‘the management of the risk’, the Commission has failed
coordination rules created by Article 10(a) of the Regulation           to observe the precautionary principle. It claims that the
are applicable?                                                         Commission has not analysed the scientific opinions relating
                                                                        to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), even the minority
                                                                        opinions, fuelling the uncertainty regarding the existence or
(1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.                                         extent of risk to human health (in particular, the opinion of
(2) OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6.                                        the Agence française pour la sécurité sanitaire des aliments
(3) OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992, p. 1.                                        (French Food Safety Agency) and the experts’ document on
                                                                        transmissible subacute spongiform encephalopathies (TSSE)
                                                                        annexed thereto); that the Commission has failed to take the
                                                                        protection measures needing to be implemented before the
                                                                        reality and gravity of those risks become fully apparent; and
                                                                        that, by refusing to modify and, indeed, to cancel its decision
                                                                        lifting the ban on British beef from 1 August 1999, the
                                                                        Commission has infringed the precautionary principle as
                                                                        established by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court. The
                                                                        Commission’s decision is thus vitiated by an infringement of
Action brought on 29 December 1999 by the French
                                                                        the Treaties, by procedural irregularities and by the absence of
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                        a statement of reasons.
                             munities
                        (Case C-514/99)                                 (1) OJ L 195 of 28.7.1999: Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of
                                                                             23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the United
                                                                             Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export scheme
                         (2000/C 63/33)                                      may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision
                                                                             98/256/EC (OJ 1998 L 113, p. 33).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 December 1999 by the French Republic,
represented by Ronny Abraham, Director of Legal Affairs in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Régine Loosli-Surrans, respectively Head of Subdirectorate and
Chargée de Mission in that Ministry, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy,                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                                 de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 22 December
                                                                        1999 in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya Chekili
The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-518/99)
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing to modify or
      cancel Decision 1999/514/EC (1).                                                             (2000/C 63/34)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de
                                                                        Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 22 December 1999,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for a
The action has been brought against a decision of the                   preliminary ruling in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya
Commission which was revealed by a statement made on                    Chekili on the following question:
29 October 1999 by Mr Commissioner Byrne, in which he
expressed the view that, following the issue on the same day
of the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC),              Does an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land
there was no longer any need to ‘re-examine the decision to             and consequential damages amount to proceedings ‘which
lift the ban on exports of British beef’, and in particular by the      have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’
decision dated 17 November 1999 by which the college of                 within the meaning of Article 16 of the Convention of
Commissioners gave formal notice to France requiring it to              27 September 1968 between the Member States of the
comply with Decision 1999/514/EC and to lift its ban.                   European Economic Community on jurisdiction and the
The action is principally based on an allegation that the               enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
Commission has infringed the precautionary principle and,               signed in Brussels on 27 September 1968?
secondarily, on a claim that the procedure followed was
inadequate and that the insufficient reasons have been given
for the contested decision.


title: Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania) — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11) v Statul român (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1)of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime — Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered — Failure to implement European Union law — Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/14

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania) — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11) v Statul român
   (Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1)of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime - Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered - Failure to implement European Union law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)
   2012/C 73/24
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Argeș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11)

      Defendant: Statul român

      Intervener: Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu (Case C-484/11)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Argeș — Interpretation of Article 5 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime — Admissibility of national legislation reducing the right to compensation for non-material harm suffered

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania, by decisions of 4 April and 4 July 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011


title: Case T-108/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/19

         Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission
   (Case T-108/16)
   (2016/C 175/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Naviera Armas, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2015 on State aid SA.36628 (2015/NN-2) (OJ 2016 C 25, p. 2) finding that no State aid was granted to the shipping company Fred Olsen S.A. in the context of measures adopted by the Kingdom of Spain at Puerto de las Nieves;

               —

               order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision, the Commission found that the alleged exclusive right held by Fred Olsen to operate out of the port of Puerto de las Nieves (the Canary Islands, Spain), Fred Olsen’s total or partial exemption from payment of the corresponding port dues, and the conditions of use of that port which, according to the applicant, also provide an unfair advantage to that shipping company in that they exclude conventional vessels, do not constitute State aid.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea claiming that it provided a sufficient statement of reasons for the Commission to have reasonable doubt concerning the existence of State aid in favour of Fred Olsen, thus giving grounds for initiation of a formal investigation procedure.
   In support of that plea, the applicant contends that:

               —

               the excessively long duration of the preliminary examination carried out by the Commission between the date Naviera Armas lodged its complaint, 26 April 2013, and the date of the contested decision is, in itself, evidence of the complexity of the case and demonstrates that initiation of a formal investigation procedure was necessary.

               —

               the contested decision is vitiated by certain manifest errors in the assessment of the facts, such as stating that no undertaking requested permission to operate out of Puerto de las Nieves using high speed ferries before 2013, that Fred Olsen was the only undertaking interested in using the port in the 1990s, and that only high speed ferries can operate out of that port.

               —

               Fred Olsen has had exclusive use of Puerto de las Nieves since 1991 thus giving it a competitive advantage at the discretion of the Spanish authorities.

               —

               Fred Olsen has benefitted from total exemption from certain port dues for over 20 years.


title: Case T-232/11: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-232/11) (1)

   (2015/C 228/30)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-650/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia), lodged on 19 December 2011 — Ilgvars Brunovskis v Lauku atbalsta dienests

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia), lodged on 19 December 2011 — Ilgvars Brunovskis v Lauku atbalsta dienests
   (Case C-650/11)
   2012/C 49/31
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ilgvars Brunovskis

      Respondent: Lauku atbalsta dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 125(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the premium which is to be established per suckler cow is applicable to all suckler cows which come into existence during the calendar year?

               2.

               Should Article 102(2) of Regulation No 1973/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the period of six months should be regarded as a time-limit for lodging applications for a premium?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is affirmative, where a Member State has reduced that time-limit, would the Member State be obliged to pay compensation for losses incurred by a farmer if he did not have the opportunity to make full use of the time-limit for applications established in the regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1).