title: Case C-215/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Feldkirch als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht by order of that court of 16 March 1999 in the case of Friedrich Jauch against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

text:
7.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                          Presidential Decree No 641/1972, regard being had to the
Feldkirch als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht by order of that                        fact that the said Article 11 retroactively extended to taxes
court of 16 March 1999 in the case of Friedrich Jauch                            paid but not due the three-year time-limit which, however,
      against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                          in the abovementioned second paragraph of Article 13 —
                                                                                on the basis of the true meaning of the words used in
                          (Case C-215/99)                                        context — was expressly limited solely to the case of
                                                                                ‘repayment of charges paid by mistake’ so as to induce not
                                                                                only the interested parties but also all the trial judges to
                          (1999/C 226/37)                                        interpret it in that manner?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           In short, does the principle of legal certainty allow the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                               national court to apply — both then and now — a
(Regional Court) Feldkirch, in its capacity as a court with                      time-limit based on a provision which, having regard to
jurisdiction in employment and social security matters, of                       the ordinary meaning of the words, does not apply to the
16 March 1999, received at the Court Registry on 7 June                          case before it?
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Jauch v
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Employees’ Retire-               2. Must the provisions of Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council
ment Insurance Institution) on the following question:                           Directive 69/335/EEC (2) be interpreted as preventing the
                                                                                introduction of national legislation, like that introduced by
‘Is it an infringement of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation                    the Italian legislature in the form of Article 11(1) and (2)
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of                       of Law No 448/1998, which — ex post facto — reduces
social security schemes to employed persons, to self employed                    refunds in respect of amounts paid but not due by way of
persons and to members of their families moving within the                       annual charge on a flat-rate basis for entry on the register
Community, in its current version, to make entitlement                           of undertakings (at that time document registries) of
to nursing benefit pursuant to the current version of the                        company documents in respect of each of which the
Bundespflegegeldgesetz (Federal Law on nursing benefit; BGBl                     company had already paid a sum provided for by the
110/1993) dependent on the person in need of care having                         national legislation?
his normal residence in Austria?’
                                                                                In short, is it permitted—in the light of the abovemen-
                                                                                tioned directive—for the national legislature to duplicate,
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                               ex post facto by means of what purports to be an
                                                                                interpretative law, levies which have already been paid?
                                                                            (1) (1988) ECR 3249.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969, p. 25.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Milano, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of
15 May 1998 in the case of Riccardo Prisco Srl v
          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                          (Case C-216/99)                                   Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (1999/C 226/38)
                                                                                (Case C-217/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the First Civil Chamber
of the Tribunale di Milano by order of 15 May 1999, which                                             (1999/C 226/39)
was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1999, on the
following questions:                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
1. Do the principles of legal certainty and the protection of               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     individuals — which, according to the judgment of the                  represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
     Court of Justice of 21 June 1988 in Case 257/88 (1) and                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
     in other judgments, require that, in areas covered by                  of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
     Community law, the Member States’ legal rules should be                Centre, Kirchberg.
     worded unequivocally so as to give the persons concerned
     a clear and precise understanding of their rights and
     obligations and enable the national courts to ensure that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     those rights and obligations are observed — and the
     Community principle of proportionality preclude a Mem-                 — declare that, by laying clown in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal
     ber State from relying on national rules setting a peremp-                  Decree of 3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the
     tory time-limit, such as those deriving from the combined                   market of nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have
     provisions of the second paragraph of Article 13 of                         been added an obligation to indicate on the labelling of the


title: Case T-103/99: Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Associazione delle Cantine Sociali Venete against the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament

text:
17.7.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 204/39
Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Associazione delle                      The applicant emphasises that, according to the Decision on
Cantine Sociali Venete against the European Ombudsman                      public access to Commission documents, recourse to the
                  and the European Parliament                              Ombudsman is one of the ‘means of redress that arc available’
                                                                           against a European institution’s refusal of a request for access.
                                                                           His activity was therefore in no way comparable with a mere
                         (Case T-103/99)                                   recommendation or an opinion of any other institution.
                         (1999/C 204/96)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Ombudsman and the European
Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 27 April 1999 by Associazione
delle Cantine Sociali Venete, represented by Ivone Cacciavillani
and Antonio Cimino, both of the Venice and Padua Bar, with                 Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain              Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I.                                                                          pean Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (Case T-117/99)
— Declare that the European Ombudsman unlawfully failed
     to act, within the meaning of Article 175 of the EC Treaty,                                   (1999/C 204/97)
     in relation to the applicant’s request presented (with other
     requests) on 3 June 1997 (received on 9 June 1997) for
     intervention in a case of refusal by the Commission of
     access to documents.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— Order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                           Paramo, Jean-Marc Venineaux, Marc Luyckx, of Brussels, Ron
                                                                           Moys, of Kent, the United Kingdom, Ines Van Lierde, Jean-Paul
The applicant association challenges the Ombudsman’s dis-                  Richard, Richard Harding, Myrian Izquierdo, Helmut Weber,
missal of its request for intervention concerning a case of                Mairead Buckley, Anna Sodro, Jean-Martial Marenne, Walter
refusal by the Commission of access to documents concerning                Marchand Lutwin, Carmelo Calamia, of Brussels, Anastassia
the procedure followed by the Commission in determining the                Vakalopoulou, of Luxembourg, Luigi Malinconico, Thérèse
compulsory distillation of table wines for the year 1993/1994.             Nibelle, Michael Horgan, Maria Jadot, Kader Chaffi, Hervé
                                                                           Lefeuvre, of Brussels, Marcello Magliulo, of Longwy, France,
                                                                           Bernard Bertrand, Marc-Ivan Miot, Catherine Cloquette, Nicola
In support of its claims, the applicant argues that there has              Pellegrino, Vassiliki Pechlivanidou, of Brussels and Barry
been infringement of:                                                      Stephen Magee, of Gonderange, Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                           Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— Article 3 of Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
     European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations                Rheinsheim.
     and general conditions governing the performance of the
     Ombudsman’s duties;
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
— Article 138e of the EC Treaty; and
                                                                           — annul the procedure and tests for the internal competition
— Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 Feb-                        COM/T/A/2/98 for the appointment as established officials
     ruary 1994 on public access to the Commission docu-                       of category A temporary agents, with a view to creating a
     ments.                                                                    reserve list of principal administrators. administrators and
                                                                               assistant administrators;
In particular, the applicant argues that the Ombudsman has
not fulfilled his function in this case and, despite the long time         — annul the procedure and tests for the internal competition
which elapsed and the notice sent to him to which he did not                   COM/T/B/2/98 for the appointment as established officials
even reply, has failed to adopt any of the decisions and/or                    of category B temporary agents, with a view to creating a
initiatives which were his responsibility and which were                       reserve list of principal assistants, assistants, and deputy
requested by the applicant.                                                    assistants;


title: Case T-344/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/65

         Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission
   (Case T-344/17)
   (2017/C 239/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA (Santiago, Chili), Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer and W. Sparks, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) insofar as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in addition or in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law by misinterpreting the evidence cited against the applicants, misapplying Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement, and failing to provide adequate reasoning, when attributing liability to the applicants for the infringement so far as it relates to the security surcharge and non-commissioning.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the Commission wrongly finds that they were aware of anticompetitive conduct in relation to the security surcharge and non-commissioning.

                           —

                           Furthermore, the applicants claim that these aspects of the alleged single and continuous infringement are not severable from the whole and consequently the contested decision has to be annulled in full.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law by misinterpreting the evidence cited against the applicants, misapplying the relevant provisions, and failing to provide adequate reasoning, when finding that the applicants participated in the infringement concerning the fuel surcharge.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the Commission has failed to prove to the required standard that they participated in the alleged infringement so far as it related to the fuel surcharge.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim that their receipt of press releases was not capable of making them aware of the alleged cartel.

                           —

                           The applicants finally allege that the limited evidence adduced of their contacts with carriers does not prove any anticompetitive conduct by the applicants or show that they knew of or could have foreseen the anticompetitive conduct of other carriers.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in fact and in law by finding the applicants liable for infringement on the routes identified in Articles 1(1), 1(3) and 1(4) of the contested decision, and failed to provide adequate reasoning.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the Commission wrongly included them in the finding of liability in Articles 1(1), 1(3) and 1(4) of the contested decision because the limitation period has expired.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim that the Commission has no jurisdiction to find them liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU on intra-EEA routes before 1 May 2004, or of Article 53 EEA Agreement before 19 May 2005.

                           —

                           The applicants further allege that the Commission has no jurisdiction to find the applicants liable for an infringement in relation to EU-Swiss routes.

                           —

                           Finally, the applicants put forward that the findings violate the principle of non bis in idem.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in fact and in law in finding the existence of the alleged cartel, and failed to provide adequate reasoning.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the Commission’s finding that they participated in the alleged cartel is vitiated by a lack of evidence.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim that this is based on the incorrect assumption that the infringement affected all routes.

                           —

                           The applicants further allege that it exceeds Commission’s jurisdiction and leads to ambiguity as regards the geographical scope of the alleged infringement.

                           —

                           The applicants finally put forward that it leads to discrepancies between the grounds and the operative part in relation to its object, which do not allow the applicants to understand the nature and the scope of the infringement alleged.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in fact and in law by finding that the alleged conduct constitutes a single and continuous infringement, and failed to provide adequate reasoning for such finding.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the conduct in question did not pursue a single anticompetitive aim.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim that the conduct in question did not concern a single product or service.

                           —

                           The applicants further allege that the conduct in question did not concern the same undertaking.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the alleged infringement did not have a single nature.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim that the elements of the alleged infringement were not discussed in parallel.

                           —

                           The applicants finally put forward that the Commission provided insufficient evidence and failed to carry out an analysis under Article 101(3) TFEU in relation to non-commissioning.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicants’ rights of defence and failed to provide adequate reasoning.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that they could not address the Commission’s finding that they knew about the infringement relating to security surcharge and non-commissioning.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim that new allegations were made to support the Commission’s finding of the alleged cartel.

                           —

                           The applicants further allege that the Commission relies on evidence that is inadmissible against them.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that discrepancies between the grounds of the contested decision and the operative part lead to a defective statement of reasons.

                           —

                           The applicants finally claim that they could not provide their views on the decision to remove 13 carriers and three aspects of the infringement from the investigation after the Statement of Objections, and the Commission provided no reasoning for doing so.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and in fact when calculating the applicants’ fine, and failed to provide adequate reasoning.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward a failure to differentiate between the coordination of a final price and coordination in relation to limited elements of a price.

                           —

                           The applicants further claim a failure to have regard for the limited combined market share of the addressees and regulatory requirements in the industry.

                           —

                           The applicants further allege that the Commission treated their conduct the same as the far more serious conduct of other addressees, including the ‘core group’.

                           —

                           The applicants finally claim a failure to take account of their more limited participation in the infringement relative to other addressees that also received a fine reduction on account of mitigating circumstances.


title: Case T-484/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Powerball — Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball)
   (Case T-484/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Powerball - Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 6/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rory McLoughney (Thurles, Ireland) (represented by: J. Stratford Lysandrides, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ernst Kern (Zahling, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1547/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rory McLoughney and Mr Ernst Kern

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Mr Rory McLoughney to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-179/02: Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

text:
24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/31
—     order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 %            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of the
      accident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73           —      annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
      of the Staff Regulations;                                                 the year 2001;
—     make an order for damages in the amount of                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
      non-material damage which the contested decision caused
      to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
      to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and as
      equitable compensation for the non-material damage;                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
                                                                         annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-
                                                                         siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
                                                                         performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal on
Following the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation to          factual allegations which the applicant contests and which will
giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that           impair his future career development.
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from total
                                                                         The applicant claims that, under the provisions on data
permanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.
                                                                         protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
                                                                         electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her            ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data.
to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73         Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that
of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result       it is based on incorrect factual information.
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of the
Medical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to be
regarded as accidental.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                         GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission
Accordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendant                             of the European Communities
infringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore,                                  (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/52)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   the European Central Bank                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June
                                                                         2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
                         (Case T-179/02)                                 Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 202/51)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         —      Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
                                                                                12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                         Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Lautex GmbH in liquidation;
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer.                                                                  —      Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-507/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Slovenia v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery from the recipient — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-507/12 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery from the recipient - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2013/C 108/70
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and A. Grum, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, D. Kukovec and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2012) 6345 final of 19 September 2012 on measures in favour of the undertaking ELAN d.o.o. [SA.26379 (C-13/2010) (ex NN 17/2010)].

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 September 2008 — Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies), Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America, Inc. v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain (Appeals — Recommendations and rulings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body — Determination of the Dispute Settlement Body that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with WTO rules — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports of certain products from various Member States — Retaliatory measures authorised by the WTO — No non-contractual Community liability — Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Reasonable period — Claim for fair compensation)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 September 2008 — Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies), Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America, Inc. v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain
   (Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Recommendations and rulings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body - Determination of the Dispute Settlement Body that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with WTO rules - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports of certain products from various Member States - Retaliatory measures authorised by the WTO - No non-contractual Community liability - Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Reasonable period - Claim for fair compensation)
   (2008/C 285/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellants: Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc. (FIAMM Technologies), Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America, Inc. (represented by: I. Van Bael, A. Cevese, F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, S. Marquardt and A. De Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P.J. Kuijper, V. Di Bucci, C. Brown and E. Righini, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (Case C-120/06 P) (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa and M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities: Kingdom of Spain (Case C-121/06 P) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission, dismissing as unfounded an action for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of retaliatory measures taken by the United States authorities in relation to a series of Community goods, including batteries manufactured and exported by the appellants, in the context of the dispute concerning the European regime governing the import of bananas
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-135/01 Fedon & Figli and Fedon America v Council and Commission, dismissing as unfounded an action for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of retaliatory measures taken by the United States authorities in relation to a series of Community goods, including spectacle cases manufactured and exported by the appellants, in the context of the dispute concerning the European regime governing the import of bananas
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeals;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeals;

               3.

               Orders Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA, Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies LLC, Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America, Inc. to bear the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-469/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et Économique, by judgment of that court of 19 December 2000 in the case of Ravil S.à r.l. against Bellon Import S.à r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A.

text:
C 45/16                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Action brought on 22 December 2000 by the Commission                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   Cassation Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et
                                                                          Économique, by judgment of that court of 19 December
                                                                          2000 in the case of Ravil S.à r.l. against Bellon Import
                                                                                S.à r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A.
                          (Case C-468/00)
                                                                                (Case C-469/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/31)
                           (2001/C 45/30)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et Économique,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December               of 19 December 2000, received at the Court Registry on
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       27 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Bernard Mongin, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,            Ravil S.à r.l. v Bellon Import Sà r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A. on the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                following question:
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ‘Must Article 29 (ex Article 34) of the EC Treaty be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding national legislation reserving the “grana padano”
                                                                          designation of origin for cheese grated in the region of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              production in so far as such an obligation is not indispensable
                                                                          for preserving specific characteristics which the product has
                                                                          acquired?’
1.    declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
      harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national
      boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and
      passengers by inland waterway in the Community (1), or,
      in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-502/99 (1)
      to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                (2001/C 45/32)
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-502/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v French Republic.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), whereby a directive is binding
upon any Member State to which it is addressed as to the
result to be achieved, implies an obligation on Member States
to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in
directives. That time-limit expired on 7 April 1998 without                      Removal from the register of Case C-318/99 (1)
the French Republic implementing the necessary provisions to
comply with Directive 96/50/EC.                                                                     (2001/C 45/33)
                                                                          By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
(1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31.                                                 from the register of Case C-318/99: Italian Republic v Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Case T-292/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2007 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission (Interim measures — Failure to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2007 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-292/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Failure to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 283/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: L. Bechtel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Application to suspend the operation of the debit notes bearing the numbers 3240905385, 3240905379, 3240905378 and 3240905393 issued by the Commission in connection with the contracts JAI/DAP/2000/338-C, JAI/2001/DAP/161/C, JAI/2002/DAP/094-W and JAI/2003/DAP/080-W
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs.


title: Case T-1/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Apache Footwear and Apache II Footwear v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Market economy status — Community interest)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Apache Footwear and Apache II Footwear v Council
   (Case T-1/07) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy status - Community interest)
   2010/C 24/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Apache Footwear Ltd (Pingsha, China); and Apache II Footwear Ltd (Qingxin) (Taiping Zhen, China) (represented initially by: O. Prost and S. Ballschmiede, and subsequently by O. Prost and E. Berthelot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents; Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst, and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners the names of which are listed in the Annex to the judgment, represented by P. Tabellini, G. Celona and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Apache Footwear Ltd and Apache II Footwear Ltd (Qingxin) to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners the names of which are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Raad van State by judgment of that court of 7 February 1995 in the case of André & Co NV v. Belgian State (Case C-153/95)

text:
22 . 7. 95            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Raad               conformity of the equipment under the approval procedure
van State by judgment of that court of 7 February 1995 in              is independent from any economic agent offering goods or
        the case of André &Co NV v. Belgian State                      services in the telecommunications sector ?
                         Case C-153/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/20 )                             H OJ No L 131 , 27 . 5 . 1988 , p . 73 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Belgian Raad
van State ( State Council ) of 7 February 1995 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of André & Co NV v. Belgian             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
State on the following questions :                                     order of that court of 25 May 1995 , in the case of Elsbeth
                                                                                Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond
1 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 of                              ( Case C-163/95 )
     15 April 1980 be interpreted as meaning that                                                ( 95/C 189/22
     application of that Regulation in respect of an export
     operation must be refused where the products to which             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the new monetary compensatory amount applies were                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     imported less than six months before the export                   of 25 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     operation ?                                                       on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond, on
2 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 be      the following questions :
     interpreted as meaning that application of that
     Regulation must also be refused with regard to an                 In a case where :
     export operation in respect of which monetary
     compensatory amounts are due , where the export
     operation was preceded less than six months before by             ( a ) there are pending proceedings in two different
     an import operation for which monetary compensatory                     Contracting States involving the same cause of action
     amounts were received by a person other than the                        and between the same parties;
     person who exported the products ?
                                                                       ( b ) the first such proceedings in time were initiated in
                                                                             Contracting State A before the Brussels Convention
                                                                             and/or any applicable Accession Convention came into
                                                                             force in that State;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de                 (c ) the second such proceedings are initiated in
Police, Nancy, by judgment of that court of 25 April 1995 in                 Contracting State B in accordance with Article 2 of the
                                                                             Brussels Convention after the Brussels Convention
the case of Ministère Public against Philippe Baumert and
                       Jean Loup Dirler                                      and/or any applicable Accession Convention has come
                                                                             into force in both State A and State B;
                        ( Case C-162/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/21 )                                   and having regard to Article 29.1 of the San Sebastian
                                                                             Convention and the corresponding Articles in any other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       applicable Accession Convention and Article 21 of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale de                       Brussels Convention ( as amended ):
Police ( Criminal Court), Nancy, of 25 April 1995 , which
was received at the Court Registry on 23 May 1995 , for a                    1 . Does the Brussels Convention ( as amended ) and/or
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public (Public                        any applicable Accession Convention lay down
Prosecutor ) against Philippe Baumert and Jean Loup Dirler                        any, and if so what, rules as to whether the
on the following question:                                                        proceedings in State B may or must be stayed , or
                                                                                jurisdiction declined, on the ground of pending
                                                                                proceedings in State A ?
Does Article 6 of Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on
competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal
                                                                                and in particular,
equipment i 1 ) preclude the application of national rules
which prohibit economic agents from, and penalize them
                                                                             2 . Is the Court second seised required or permitted ,
for, manufacturing, importing, holding for sale, selling,
distributing or advertising terminal equipment without                            for the purpose of deciding whether or not to
furnishing proof, in the form of an approval or another                           decline jurisdiction in respect of, or to stay, the
document regarded as equivalent, that such equipment                              proceedings before it, to conduct any, and, if so,
                                                                                what examination of the basis upon which the
conforms to certain essential requirements relating in
                                                                                Court first seised assumed jurisdiction ?
particular to the safety of users and the proper functioning
of the network, even though there is no guarantee that
the laboratory responsible for monitoring the technical


title: Case C-408/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 21 July 2016 — Compania Națională de Autostrăzi și Drumuri Naționale din România SA v Ministerul Fondurilor Europene — Direcția Generală Managementul Fondurilor Externe

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 21 July 2016 — Compania Națională de Autostrăzi și Drumuri Naționale din România SA v Ministerul Fondurilor Europene — Direcția Generală Managementul Fondurilor Externe
   (Case C-408/16)
   (2016/C 383/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compania Națională de Autostrăzi și Drumuri Naționale din România SA

      Defendants: Ministerul Fondurilor Europene — Direcția Generală Managementul Fondurilor Externe

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/18 (1) to be interpreted as permitting a Member State not to apply the directive, following its accession to the European Union, if it has the benefit of a finance agreement concluded with the European Investment Bank which was signed before the accession and under which specific requirements imposed by the lending institution, such as those at issue in the present case, which are more restrictive than those laid down by the directive, are applied to public contracts to be awarded?

               2.

               Is Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as precluding a legislative measure under national law, such as O.U.G. No 72/2007 (Decree Law No 72/2007), which provides for the application of the European Investment Bank Guide to Procurement, by way of derogation from the legislative measure by which the directive was transposed into national law, namely, in the present case, O.U.G. No 34/2006 (Decree Law No 34/2006), on grounds such as those set out in the explanatory memorandum, for the purpose of compliance with the finance agreement concluded prior to accession?

               3.

               On a proper interpretation of Article 9(5) and Article 60(a) of Regulation No 1083/2006, (2) may such a public contract, concluded in compliance with the European Investment Bank Guide to Procurement and with national law, be regarded as consistent with EU law and eligible for European non-reimbursable financial support, granted retrospectively?

               4.

               In the event that Question 3 is answered in the negative, if such a public contract was nonetheless considered to be consistent with EU law at the time the check was carried out to verify compliance with the qualification requirements for the Programului operațional sectorial ‘Transport’ 2007-2013 (Sectoral Operational Programme ‘Transport’ 2007 2013), does such an alleged breach of EU public procurement law (determination of certain pre-selection criteria for the tenderers which are similar to those set out in the European Investment Bank Guide to Procurement and more restrictive than those laid down in Directive 2004/18 — as set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the present order for reference) constitute an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of Regulation No 1083/2006, giving rise to an obligation on the part of the Member State concerned to make a financial correction/percentage reduction pursuant to Article 98(2) of the regulation?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).


title: Case T-225/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission (European Social Fund — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Withdrawal of financial aid — Action for annulment — Directly concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission
   (Case T-225/02) (1)

   (European Social Fund - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Withdrawal of financial aid - Action for annulment - Directly concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/89)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, Speain) (represented by: initially A. Sánchez-Rubio García, then A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero and L. Flynn, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 2621 of 29 December 2000 relating to the withdrawal of aid which was allocated by the European Social Fund (ESF) by application of Decision C (91) 2852 of 19 December 1991 adopting the Community initiative ‘Euroform’ for Spain (P.O. 913051ES8) and ESF funds which the Spanish authorities allocated to the Cámara de Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza, for the ‘Tricoin’ project (ref.: EUR-82), for the implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de Zaragoza was responsible.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Case F-27/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission
   (Case F-27/05) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances)
   (2006/C 190/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Viviane Le Maire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bournéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the right to the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, following her entry into service on 16 February 2004
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and half of the costs of the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 182 of 23.07.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-191/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-355/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/70

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
   (Case T-355/17)
   (2017/C 239/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘RoB’ — EU trade mark No 5 284 104

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 in Case R 1405/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 October 1998 in Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia v. Commission of the European Communities and Kingdom of Spain (Agriculture - Regulation having general application - Action brought by a regional body - Inadmissibility) (1999/C 1/28)

text:
C 1/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio Creus and              1. The application is dimissed as inadmissible;
Alex Subirachs Amigó, of the Barcelona Bar, with an
address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for                     2. The applicant is to pay the costs;
annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of
24 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for
reclassification and, second, of the Commission's decision
of 29 April 1997 rejecting the complaint lodged against             3. The applicant for leave to intervene is to bear its own
the decision of 24 October 1996 Ð the Court of First                    costs.
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President; J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 14 October 1998, the                    (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 28 October 1998
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                           in Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                    (Action for damages Ð Action manifestly lacking any
                                                                                foundation in law)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/29)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     of 23 October 1998
in Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia v. Commission of the
      European Communities and Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                    In Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
(Agriculture Ð Regulation having general application Ð              Middlesex, England, represented by Raymond St John
    Action brought by a regional body Ð Inadmissibility)            Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple,
                                                                    London, against Commission of the European
                        (1999/C 1/28)                               Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð application under
                                                                    Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage which the
                                                                    applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     publication, under the Commission's responsibility, of a
                                                                    fact sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and
                                                                    qualifications for general and specialist medical
                                                                    practitioners Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia, represented by                    Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President,
Francesco Rosi and Antonio Campagnola, of the Rome                  V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               an order on 28 October 1998, the operative part of which
Chambers of Penning & AssocieÂs, 31 Grand-Rue, v                    is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) and Kingdom of Spain Ð
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1979/97 of 10 October 1997 fixing the estimated                  1. The application is dismissed.
production of olive oil and the amount of the unit
production aid that may be paid in advance for the
1996/97 marketing year (OJ L 278, 11.10.1997, p. 12) Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed              2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili and P.
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
23 October 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:


title: Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-317/94 Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-280/98 P)

text:
C 299/14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for          Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Moritz J. Weig
    judgment,                                                       GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on
                                                                    14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (Extended
                                                                    Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
Ð order the costs to be reserved.                                   European Communities in Case T-317/94 Moritz J. Weig
                                                                    GmbH & Co. KG and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case C-280/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 299/24)
Ð Contradictory reasoning: the Court of First Instance
    has not drawn the appropriate conclusions from its
    own findings of the inadequacy of the statement of              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
    reasons for the Commission's decision as regards the            1998 by the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of
    determination of the general level of fines. In finding         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    that the Commission's decision did not satisfy the              in Case T-317/94 between Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co.
    requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty, the Court            KG and Commission of the European Communities was
    was under an obligation to draw all the appropriate             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    conclusions from that finding and therefore to annul            Communities on 23 July 1998 by Moritz J. Weig GmbH
    the measure at issue. The fact that the Commission              & Co. KG, represented by Thomas Jestaedt and Verena
    was unaware of the precise extent of its duty to state          von Bomhard, Rechtsanwälte, Boesebeck Droste, 9 Avenue
    reasons cannot constitute a ground for refusing to              des Gaulois/Gallierslaan, B-1040 Brussels, with an address
    annul the Decision.                                             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
                                                                    Dupont, Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                    L-2010 Luxembourg.
    To accept generally that the reasons for a decision may
    validly be furnished in proceedings before the                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
    Community judicature renders the obligation to state
    reasons meaningless. Furthermore, the Commission                1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    cannot, without infringing the principle of collegiality,           14 May 1998 (1) and declare void Article 3 of
    give the reasons for its decision in the course of the              Commission Decision 94/601/EC (2) of 13 July 1994
    proceedings before the Court,                                       relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard);
Ð Erroneous interpretation of the concept of effects of
    the infringement on the market'; infringement of the            2. order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs
    principle of proportionality: for the purpose of                    before the Court of First Instance and the Court of
    determining the gravity of the infringement, regard                 Justice.
    should be had only to the effect on actual prices (in
    comparison with those which might have occurred in              Alternatively: that the Court should:
    the absence of collusion). The restrictive impact on
    competition relates only to the implementation of the           1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    agreement by the undertaking; although its existence is             14 May 1998 and fix at ECU 1 million the fine
    a necessary condition for the appearance of an actual               imposed in Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/
    effect of the infringement on the market, it does not               EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    necessarily follow that the agreement had an actual                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
    impact on prices or on the other competitive                        Cartonboard);
    conditions of the market. The Court of First Instance
    infringed the principle of proportionality in upholding         2. order the Commission to pay two thirds of the
    the level of the fine while finding that the Commission             appellant's costs before the Court of First Instance and
    had not proved that the infringement had affected                   the whole of the appellant's costs before the Court of
    cartonboard prices,                                                 Justice.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: the
    Court of First Instance held Cascades responsible for
    the conduct of two subsidiaries prior to their                  Ð The contested judgment wrongly failed to annul the
    acquisition. On the other hand, Mayr-Melnhof (Case                  fine on the ground that the statement of reasons for it
    T-347/94) was not held responsible for the conduct of               was inadequate. The fact that the Commission was
    its subsidiary Eerbeek in respect of the period prior to            prepared, during the proceedings before the Court, to
    its acquisition.                                                    provide all information concerning the method of
                                                                        calculating the fines should not have been taken into
                                                                        account when considering the adequacy of the
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 30.                                          statement of reasons.
(2) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994, p. 16.
                                                                    Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and
                                                                        Article 15(2) of Council Regulation No 17 and
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/15
    Article 172 of the EC Treaty: unlike in the case of the                considerably on the ground that such statement of
    other parties involved, the Court did not hold that its                reasons was inadequate;
    finding that the appellant had participated in the cartel
    for a shorter period should be reflected by an
    appropriate reduction in the fine.                                 2. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to
                                                                           the extent to which the Court of First Instance
                                                                           does not consider that, by not taking account of
    When assessing the gravity of the infringement the                     the effects of the devaluation of the peseta against
    Court of First Instance wrongly took the view that the                 the ecu, the Commission infringed the principle of
    absence of economic effects of the infringement was                    equal treatment or, in the alternative, reduce the
    not a mitigating factor in regard to the fine.                         fine so as to take account of that devaluation;
                                                                       3. in the alternative, annul the contested judgment to
    Lastly, the Court of First Instance erred in law in
                                                                           the extent to which it does not order the
    finding that the appellant's cooperation should not be
                                                                           Commission to pay, at first instance, the totality of
    taken into account so as to reduce the fine.
                                                                           the costs and interest deriving from the security for
                                                                           or possible payment of all or part of the fine, and
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 32.                                             decide that the interest accruing on the fine
(2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.                                             accrues only from the time at which the judgment
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance becomes enforceable,
                                                                           and consequently order the Commission to pay the
                                                                           costs and interest connected with security for or
                                                                           possible payment of the fine;
Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Enso EspanÄola, SA               2. order the respondent in the proceedings before the
against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay
Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                   the costs, and give a decision to the effect that the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                     costs be paid by the defendant at first instance in the
       T-348/94 between Enso EspanÄola, SA and the                     event of the present appeal being held to be wholly or
         Commission of the European Communities                        partly well founded.
                      (Case C-282/98 P)
                        (98/C 299/25)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May                 Ð Infringement of Community law:
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-348/94 between Enso EspanÄola, SA and the                    Ð misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 190
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         of the Treaty establishing the European
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    Community as regards the lack of a statement of
on 23 July 1998 by Enso EspanÄola, SA, represented by                      the reasons on which the Decision was based in
Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva Contreras                     relation to the fine,
Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at
the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, Avenue                           Ð misinterpretation and misapplication of the
d'Auderghem 78, Brussels.                                                  principle of equal treatment through failure by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance correctly to evaluate the
                                                                           devaluations of the Spanish peseta which gave rise
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                           to an increase in the fine to be paid by ENSO
                                                                           EspanÄola, SA as compared with the fines to be
                                                                           paid by other undertakings whose currencies have
1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
                                                                           not lost value or have indeed increased in value,
    Case T-348/94 (1) to the extent set out below and draw
    all the legal consequences of the setting aside of that
    judgment, whether it gives a decision on the substance             Ð incoherent reasoning on the part of the Court of
    itself or refers the case back to the Court of First                   First Instance regarding its failure to order the
    Instance for judgment, and in particular:                              Commission to pay the costs and interest deriving
                                                                           from the provision of security for or payment of
    1. annul the contested judgment to the extent to                       the fine.
         which it treats the Decision as not infringing
         Article 190 of the EC Treaty as far as the fine is        (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 36.
         concerned and, in consequence, annul the fine on
         the ground of lack of a statement of the reasons
         for the Decision or, in the alternative, reduce it


title: Case T-225/02: Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark applied         the word mark ‘ROBOTUNITS’ —
for:                           Application No 1 176 320
                                                                          The action has been brought against the decision by which the
Goods or services con-         goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9                Commission withdrew the aid, initially granted by the Euro-
cerned:                        (including metal profiles, guides          pean Social Fund, for which the undertaking COPY ARAGON
                               for machines and conveyor belts)           S.A. had applied on 25 November 1991 for the purpose of
                                                                          running specialised courses in colour image processing by
Decision         contested     refusal of registration by the             computer systems, financed by the Community initiative
before the Board of            examiner                                   EUROFORM (TRICOIN Project). The decision was essentially
Appeal:                                                                   based on the fact that the project concerned was not transna-
                                                                          tional.
Decision of the Board of       dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of         In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:
                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                                                                          —     The Commission made errors of assessment concerning
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                the facts on which it based its decision, in so far as
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                 regards both the description of the Chamber of Com-
                                                                                merce, Zaragoza, as the ultimate recipient of the aid
                                                                                granted and the allegation that the project did not have a
                                                                                sufficiently transnational dimension. It points out in that
                                                                                connection that the Community rules on the conditions
                                                                                and requirements for an transnational dimension in the
                                                                                framework of the programme for 1988 to 1993 were
                                                                                neither sufficiently specific nor sufficiently clear and that
Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de                                 consequently it was impossible to ascertain precisely
Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza against the Commission                         which operations were transnational and which were not.
                of the European Communities
                                                                          —     If the international operations required by the Com-
                          (Case T-225/02)
                                                                                mission were not provided for either in the original
                                                                                application or in any subsequent alterations to the project
                         (2002/C 233/55)                                        and the project was approved in that form, there is
                                                                                no reason to impose such a requirement retroactively,
                                                                                inasmuch as to do so would amount to a breach of the
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                principle of legal certainty.
                                                                          —     The period which elapsed between presentation on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                28 July 1999 of the UAFSE document containing the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                submissions made in response to the defendant’s notifi-
European Communities on 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de
                                                                                cation of 11 June 1999 of its proposal to instigate the
Comercio e Industria, Zaragoza, Spain, represented by Alfredo
                                                                                procedure for withdrawing the aid granted and the
Sánchez-Rubio Garcia, lawyer.                                                   contested decision of 29 December 2000, and the
                                                                                period which elapsed between the date on which the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission adopted the Decision and the date of its
                                                                                notification to the Chamber of Commerce, Zaragoza, on
                                                                                16 May 2002 exceed what should and can be regarded as
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000) 2621 of 29 Decem-                       reasonable in accordance with the principle of sound
      ber 2000 ‘relating to the withdrawal of aid which was
                                                                                administration.
      allocated to the European Social Fund (ESF) by the
      Commission on 19.12.1991 No C(91) 2852 via the
      Community initiative “EUROFORM” for Spain (P.O.                     —     Failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.
      913051ES8) and which the Spanish authorities (UAFSE)
      likewise allocated by way of ESF funds to the Cámara de
      Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza,               —     The contested decision does not bear any signature
      for the “TRICOIN” project (ref.: EUR-82), for the                         establishing the document’s authenticity.
      implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de
      Zaragoza was responsible’;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.