title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/00: Justina Martínez Alarcón and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to competition — Requisite professional experience)

text:
C 131/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           1.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber, J. Pirrung
                                                                           and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
                        of 6 March 2002                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 March 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
in Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board of 24 February 2000
                                                                                not to admit the applicant to the tests of internal competition
                                                                                COM/TB/99;
(Officials — Application for revision of a judgment — New
                 fact — None — Inadmissible)
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                         (2002/C 131/29)                                   3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
In Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha, official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Korbeek-Lo
(Belgium), represented by A. Ottati, lawyer, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for revision of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293 — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President                                      of 13 March 2002
of the Chamber, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002, in which it:
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/
                                                                           00: Justina Martı́nez Alarcón and Others v Commission
1.    Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicant for revision to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to
                                                                                competition — Requisite professional experience)
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                (2002/C 131/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and
                        of 13 March 2002                                   T-364/00: Justina Martı́nez Alarcón, Antonio Cherenti, Luigia
                                                                           Dricot, Sophie Van Weyenbergh, officials of the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, residing in Thuin (Belgium),
in Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal v Commission of the                          Overijse (Belgium) and Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                   European Communities (1)                                C. Mourato, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the                   H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — appli-
       competition — Professional experience required)                     cation for annulment of decisions rejecting the applicants’
                                                                           candidature for internal competition COM/TB/99 — the Court
                                                                           of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
                         (2002/C 131/30)
                                                                           Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Chris-
                                                                           tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                   (Language of the case: French)                          13 March 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           In Case T-364/00:
In Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal, residing in Walhain (Belgium),
represented by I. Cooreman and T. Delvaux, lawyers, v                      1.    The decision of the selection board of 28 January 2000
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)                       rejecting Ms Van Weyenbergh’s application to internal compe-
— application inter alia for annulment of the decision rejecting                 tition COM/TB/99 and the decision of the appointing authority
the applicant’s candidacy for internal competition COM/TB/                       of 9 October 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
99 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed                      applicant are annulled.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 131/17
2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed.                        2.   Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
3.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
In Cases T-357/00, T-361/00 and T-363/00:
1.    The applications are dismissed.
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                                of 25 January 2002
                                                                            in Case T-207/00: Nuno Antas de Campos v European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Mobility scheme of the European Parliament
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 131/33)
                         of 20 February 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
in Case T-117/01: Marcos Roman Parra v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Promotion — Complaint through official                         In Case T-207/00: Nuno Antas de Campos, an official of
            channels — Implied rejection — Reasons)                         the European Parliament, residing in Lisbon, represented by
                                                                            C. Botelho Moniz, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: R. Da Silva
                             (2002/C 131/32)                                Passos and J.F. De Wachter) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the decision communicated to him by a letter of 30 March
                                                                            2000 by the Directorate General of Personnel, according to
                      (Language of the case: French)                        which he is subject to the mobility scheme for 2000 — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                            R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 25 January 2002,
                                                                            the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-117/01: Marcos Roman Parra, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Zaven-
tem (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,                     1.   The order is dismissed as inadmissible.
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
dis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                 2.   The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and pay one
decision not to promote him to Grade A 6 in the course of the                    half of those incurred by the applicant. The applicant shall bear
2000 promotion procedure — the Court of First Instance                           one half of his own costs.
(Single Judge: Mr H. Legal); Blanca Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 February
                                                                            3.   The parties shall bear their own costs incurred in the interlocu-
2002, in which it:
                                                                                tory proceedings.
1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote
      Mr Roman Parra to Grade A 6 in the course of the 2000                 (1) OJ C 302 21.10.2000.
      promotion procedure, as evidenced by the publication in
      Administrative Notices No 65-2000 of 14 August 2000 of
      the list of officials promoted to that Grade.


title: Case C-49/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 31 January 2012 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 31 January 2012 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani
   (Case C-49/12)
   2012/C 118/17
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret (Denmark)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Respondents: Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani

      Question referred

   Must Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that its scope extends to cover a case in which the authorities of a Member State bring a claim for damages against undertakings and natural persons resident in another Member State on the basis of an allegation — made pursuant to the national law of the first Member State — of a tortious conspiracy to defraud consisting in involvement in the withholding of VAT due to the first Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-454/14: Action brought on 30 September 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/9

         Action brought on 30 September 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-454/14)
   (2014/C 448/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites identified in point 26 of the present application (non-hazardous waste landfills in Urtuella in the Basque Country, and in Zurita and Juan Grande in the Canary Islands), the measures necessary to request the relevant operator to prepare a conditioning plan and ensure full implementation of that plan in accordance with the requirements of the directive, with the exception of those listed in Annex I, point 1, within eight years after the date laid down in Article 18(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(c) of the directive in relation to each of the landfill sites listed.

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites identified in point 37 of the present application (9 non-hazardous waste landfills (Vélez Rubio (Almería), Alcolea de Cinca (Huesca), Sariñena (Huesca), Tamarite de Litera (Huesca), Somontano — Barbastro (Huesca), Barranco de Sedases (Fraga, Huesca), Barranco Seco (Puntallana, La Palma), Jumilla (Murcia) y Legazpia (Guipuzkoa)) and 19 inert waste landfills (Sierra Valleja (Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz), Carretera Pantano del Rumblar (Baños de la Encina, Jaén), Barranco de la Cueva (Bélmez de la Moraleda, Jaén), Cerrajón (Castillo de Locution, Jaén), Las Canters (Jimena y Bed mar, Jaén), Hoya del Pine (Siles, Jaén), Bella vista (Finca El Coronel, Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), El Patarín (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), Carretera de Arahal-Morón de la Frontera (Arahal, Sevilla), Carretera de Almadén de la Plata (Cazalla de la Sierra, Sevilla), El Chaparral (Écija, Sevilla), Carretera A-92, KM 57,5 (Morón de la Frontera, Sevilla), Carretera 3118 Fuente Leona — Cumbres mayores (Colina Barragona, Huelva), Llanos del Campo (Grazalema — Benamahoma, Cádiz) Andrada Baja (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), Las Zorreras (Aldeira, Granada), Carretera de los Villares (Andújar, Jaén) La Chacona (Cabra, Córdoba) and el Chaparral — La Sombrerera (Puerto Serrano, Cádiz))), the measures necessary to close as soon as possible, pursuant to Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Directive 1999/31, the sites which had not been granted, under Article 8 of that directive, a permit to continue to operate, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of each of the landfills listed in Article 14(b) of the directive.

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The investigations conducted by the Commission in the course of infringement proceedings 2001/2071 and the analysis of the Spanish authorities’ responses enabled the finding that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a) and (c), as set out in the letter of formal notice, and those under Article 14(b) of the directive.
   The present action also relates to the landfill of Barranco de Sedases, which is the subject of infringement proceedings 2012/4068 and the infringement proceedings referred to above. The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(b) of Directive 1999/31 in relation to that landfill.
   The analysis of those responses enabled the Commission to remove from the proceedings 45 landfill sites which either could not be considered to be existing landfills on 16 July 2001, or had been authorised and conditioned in accordance with Directive 1999/31. However, in the light of the continuing non-compliance — given the Spanish authorities’ failure, in certain cases, to adopt the measures necessary to request that the relevant operator prepare a conditioning plan and ensure full implementation of that plan in accordance with the requirements of the directive, and in other cases to take the measures necessary to close as soon as possible the sites which had not been granted a permit to continue to operate, and, accordingly, the Kingdom of Spain’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(c) and (b) of Directive 1999/31 — the Commission has decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case C-49/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH

text:
C 131/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
3.    The Parliament’s application for the Court to order                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
      Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case        tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002
      T-130/98 is rejected.                                                in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                                Bauchemie GmbH
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                (Case C-49/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/04)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
                                                                           (Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                           Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:
                         of 14 March 2002
                                                                           For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-                   combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
    urta v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
                                                                           (colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
                                                                           recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff                for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member                  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal                    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)                       marks?
                          (2002/C 131/03)                                  In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
                                                                           such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           a)    a sign,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     b)    sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           c)    capable of being represented graphically?
In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta,               (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Com-
munities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,                Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber,
                                                                                and Others
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as                                         (Case C-60/02)
follows:
                                                                                (2002/C 131/05)
1.    The appeals are dismissed.
2.    Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs.                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisen-
                                                                           stadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
                                                                           S.A. and Others, on the following question:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2002 in Joined Cases T-346/99, T-347/99 and T-348/99: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Tax measures — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 19/28                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
Mediterranean area; and, in Case T-151/99, for the annulment                1999 C 351, p. 29, and OJ 2000 C 71, p. 8), the Court of First
of Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of 4 March 1999                         Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
withdrawing the assistance made to Tecnagrind SL by Com-                    of: M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts,
mission Decision C (96) 2235 of 13 September 1996,                          P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; Registrar: B. Pastor, Deputy
concerning grant of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contri-                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, in                        it:
connection with Project No 95.ES.06.005 entitled ‘Demonstra-
tive project for the processing if castor-oil plants (Ricinus
Communis) in agricultural undertakings for the extraction of                1.     Dismisses the applications;
aromatic essences’, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs together with those
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,                     of the Commission.
has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which:
1.     The applications are dismissed.                                      (1 ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
2.     In each case, the applicants shall bear their own costs and pay
       those of the Commission.
( 1) OJ C 246, 28.8.99.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 23 October 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Joined Cases T-346/99, T-347/99 and T-348/99: Territo-
                                                                            rio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and
                                                                              Others v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                        of 23 October 2002
in Joined Cases T-269/99, T-271/99 and T-272/99: Territo-                   (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under
rio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Gui-                       Article 88(2) EC — Actions for annulment — Admissibility
púzcoa and Others v Commission of the European Com-                         — Tax measures — Selective nature — Legitimate expec-
                             munities ( 1)                                                     tations — Misuse of powers)
(State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article                                          (2003/C 19/52)
88(2) EC — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Tax
measures — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations —
                          Misuse of powers)                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2003/C 19/51)
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-346/99, T-347/99 and T-348/99, Territorio
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio
                                                                            Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa,
                                                                            Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya,
                                                                            represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente,
In Joined Cases T-269/99, T-271/99 and T-272/99, Territorio                 lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa,                     F. Santaolalla Gadea, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana): Appli-
Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava,                  cation for annulment of the Commission’s decision, notified
Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya,              to the Spanish authorities by letter of 29 September 1999, to
represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente,                   initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC against the
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  Spanish State in relation to tax aid in the form of a reduction
F. Santaolalla Gadea, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana): Appli-               in the tax base for firms in the Provinces of Álava, Viscaya and
cation for annulment of the Commission’s decisions, notified                Guipúzcoa (OJ 2000 C 55, p. 2), the Court of First Instance
to the Spanish authorities by letters of 17 August 1999, to                 (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC against the                   M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh
Spanish State in relation to tax aid in the form of a 45 % tax              and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a
credit in the Provinces of Álava, Viscaya and Guipúzcoa (OJ                 judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 19/29
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                          applicant in Case T-132/00, Cambridge Healthcare Supplies
                                                                            Ltd, established in Norfolk (United Kingdom), represented by
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs together with those     D. Vaughan, K. Bacon, barristers, and S. Davis, solicitor, with
       of the Commission.                                                   an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-137/
                                                                            00, Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker SA, established in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by L. Defalque and X. Leurquin, lawyers,
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case
                                                                            T-141/00, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbæk, R. Wainwright and B. Wägenbaur):
                                                                            Application for annulment of the Commission decisions of
                                                                            9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing
                                                                            authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing
                                                                            respectively ‘amfepramone’ (C(2000) 453), as regards Cases
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                T-74/00, T-76/00 and T-141/00, inter alia‘norpseudoephedri-
                                                                            ne’, ‘clobenzorex’ and ‘fenproporex’ (C(2000) 608), as regards
                      of 26 November 2002                                   Cases T-83/00 to T-85/00, and ‘phentermine’ (C(2000) 452),
                                                                            as regards Cases T-132/00 and T-137/00, the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00,                       of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-
T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00: Artegodan GmbH and                         gozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November 2002,
                                                                            in which it:
(Medicinal products for human use — Community arbi-
tration procedures — Withdrawal of marketing authoris-
                                                                            1.     Annuls the Commission Decisions of 9 March 2000 (C(2000)
ations — Competence — Criteria for withdrawal — Anorect-                           452, C(2000) 453 and C(2000) 608) in so far as they relate
ics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephe-
                                                                                to the medicinal products marketed by the applicants;
drine, phentermine — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/
                                 EEC)
                                                                            2.     Orders the Commission to pay all the costs, including those
                                                                                incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.
                           (2003/C 19/53)
          (Language of the case: German, English and French)                (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000, C 163 of 10.6.2000, C 192 of 8.7.2000
                                                                                and C 233 of 12.8.2000.
In Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/
00, T-137/00 and T- 141/00, Artegodan GmbH, established
in Lüchow (Germany), represented by U. Doepner, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case
T-74/00, Bruno Farmaceutici SpA, established in Rome (Italy),
Essential Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, established in Denham
(United Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel SA, established in
Brussels (Belgium), Marion Merell SA, established in Puteaux                                         of 22 October 2002
(France), Marion Merell SA, established in Barcelona (Spain),
Sanova Pharma GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria),                        in Joined Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00, Jan Pflugradt v
Temmler Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, established in Marburg                                             European Central Bank (1)
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants
in Case T-76/00, Schuck GmbH, established in Schwaig                        (Staff of the European Central Bank — Amendment of
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius,                              employment contract — Performance appraisal)
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant
in Case T-83/00, Laboratórios Roussel Lda , established in Mem                                          (2003/C 19/54)
Martins (Portugal), represented by B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant
in Cases T-84/00 and T-85/00, Laboratoires Roussel Diamant                                      (Language of the case: German)
SARL, established in Puteaux (France), represented by B. Sträter
and M. Ambrosius, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-84/00, Roussel Iberica SA,
established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by B. Sträter                 In Joined Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00, Jan Pflugradt, residing
and M. Ambrosius, lawyers, with an address for service in                   in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented in Case T-178/
Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-85/00, Gerot Pharmazeutika                  00 by N. Pflüger, lawyer, and in Case T-341/00 by N. Pflüger,
GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by K. Grig-              R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers, with an address for
kar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                     service in Luxembourg, v European Central Bank (Agents: in


title: Case T-444/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/49

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006)
   (Case T-444/08)
   (2008/C 313/88)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, A. Barav, Barrister, R. Buchel and C. Rassmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OHG mbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2008 in case R 1466/2005-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘WORLD CUP 2006’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 152 817

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the Board of Appeal has based, largely, its decision on Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, a provision which was neither invoked by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, nor relied upon by the Cancellation Division; (ii) Alternatively, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity as a whole, through the eyes of the average consumer and to apply the relevant law relating to the assessment of descriptiveness of the goods and/or services applied for; and (iii) Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of the necessary distinctive character; and (iv) Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity had not acquired a distinctive character for services in class 41.


title: Case T-14/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Kazino Parnithas v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/19

         Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Kazino Parnithas v Commission
   (Case T-14/12)
   2012/C 65/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, N. Niejahr, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis and K. Spyropoulos, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25);

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision to the extent it applies to the applicant; or

               —

               Further in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU in determining that the measure at stake constituted an aid measure by:

                           —

                           identifying that the applicant benefited from an economic advantage in the form of a ‘fiscal discrimination’ in the amount of Euro 7,20 per Ticket;

                           —

                           finding that the measure involved forgone State resources;

                           —

                           considering that the measure was selective in favour of the applicant; and

                           —

                           concluding that the measure distorted competition and had an effect on trade between Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide adequate reasoning to enable the applicant to understand and this Court to review the reasoning based on which it found that the applicant benefited from a selective advantage, that any such advantage involved forgone State revenues and would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that in so far as the contested decision orders recovery of amounts from the applicant it violates:

                           —

                           Article 14(1), first sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), pursuant to which recovery shall relate to the aid received by the beneficiary, since the defendant failed to correctly quantify in the contested decision the amount of aid that the applicant may have received; and

                           —

                           Article 14(1), second sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since recovery in this case infringes general principles of EU law, namely: the principle of legitimate expectations; the principle of legal certainty; and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)


title: Case T-170/11: Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya & C. (BASKAYA)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/34

         Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya & C. (BASKAYA)
   (Case T-170/11)
   2011/C 145/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Spintig, U. Sander and H. Förster, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baskaya di Baskaya & C. s.a.s. (Grosseto, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 in Case R 534/2010-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Baskaya di Baskaya & C. s.a.s.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including word element ‘BASKAYA’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registered figurative mark including the word element ‘Passaia’ for goods in Class 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the Board of Appeal failed to apply Article 5 of the German-Swiss Agreement of 13 April 1892 on mutual protection of patents, trade marks and designs and for that reason erred in law by failing to have regard to the proof of use adduced by the applicant.

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


title: Case C-274/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
   (Case C-274/16)
   (2016/C 343/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: flightright GmbH

      Defendant: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

      Question referred

   In the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the place of arrival of the second leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place of performance under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 (1) in the case where the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated the first leg of the journey on which the irregularity took place and transport on the second leg of the journey was carried out by a different air carrier?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


title: Case T-12/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/40

         Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission
   (Case T-12/17)
   (2017/C 063/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision Ares (2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, received by the applicant on 11 November 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to adopt a new decision on the merits of the applicant’s request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 on the extension of authorisation for glyphosate;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation and with the Aarhus Convention (2)

               The applicant submits, in connection with the first plea, that the extension of the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act that is amenable to review in the procedure under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3)

               The applicant claims that the Commission was not empowered to extend the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate under the provision referred to above, as that rule was not applicable at all in the present case.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).


title: Case T-145/13: Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/24

         Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance v Commission
   (Case T-145/13)
   2013/C 123/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission communicated by letter of 3 January 2013, No H4/JN/Ref.t13.000011, informing the applicant that it would not examine the applicant’s request to be granted the status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions, filed pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, opened on 6 September 2012 (AD 590);

               —

               Declare inapplicable to the applicant as regards the present application, by virtue of Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1);

               —

               And, consequently, order the Commission and any interveners to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law identical to that raised in Case T-143/13 Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission.


title: Case C-192/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in K. Tas-Hagen and R.A. Tas v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in K. Tas-Hagen and R.A. Tas v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad
   (Case C-192/05)
   (2005/C 182/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court) (Netherlands) of 22 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between K. Tas-Hagen and R.A. Tas and Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad (Pension and Benefits Board Advisory Chamber on the Law on Benefits for Civilian War Victims) on the following question:
   Does Community law, in particular Article 18 EC, preclude national legislation under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the grant of a benefit for civilian war victims is refused solely on the ground that the person concerned, who holds the nationality of the relevant Member State, was resident, not in the territory of that Member State, but in the territory of another Member State at the time when the application was submitted?


title: Case C-93/14: Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra — Spain) — Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza, Antonia Artieda Soria v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra — Spain) — Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza, Antonia Artieda Soria v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA
   (Case C-93/14) (1)

   (2014/C 431/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-262/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany)) — Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler v Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt (Free movement of capital — Income tax — Certificate relating to corporation tax actually paid on dividends of foreign origin — Prevention of double taxation of dividends — Tax credit for dividends paid by resident companies — Proof required as to the foreign tax deductible)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany)) — Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler v Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt
   (Case C-262/09) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Income tax - Certificate relating to corporation tax actually paid on dividends of foreign origin - Prevention of double taxation of dividends - Tax credit for dividends paid by resident companies - Proof required as to the foreign tax deductible)
   2011/C 252/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler

      Defendants: Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 56 and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC and the principles of effectiveness and utility — Distribution of dividends by a company established in one Member State to a taxable person in another Member State — Compatibility with Community law of an income tax scheme in the other Member State which allows a tax credit of 3/7 of the gross dividends, although the corporation tax levied on those dividends cannot in practice be determined for a company established in another Member State, and which makes that tax credit subject to the presentation of a corporation tax declaration drawn up according to its own tax legislation, although it is in practice impossible for the taxable person to produce it for a company established in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               For the calculation of the amount of the tax credit to which a shareholder who is fully taxable in a Member State with regard to dividends paid by a capital company established in another Member State is entitled, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude the application — if evidence required under the legislation of the first Member State is not adduced — of a provision such as Paragraph 36(2), second sentence, point 3 of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) of 7 September 1990, as amended by the Law of 13 September 1993, under which corporation tax imposed on dividends of foreign origin is set off against a shareholder’s income tax to the level of the fraction of corporation tax imposed on gross dividends distributed by companies in the first Member State.
               The calculation of the tax credit must be made in relation to the rate of corporation tax on the distributed profits applicable to the dividend-paying company according to the law of the Member State of establishment, however the amount to be imposed may not exceed the amount of the income tax to be paid on dividends received by the recipient shareholder in the Member State in which that shareholder is fully taxable.

               2.

               As regards the degree of detail which the evidence required must meet in order to benefit from a tax credit relating to dividends paid by a capital company established in a Member State other than that where the beneficiary is fully taxable, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude the application of a provision such as Paragraph 36(2), second sentence, point 3, fourth sentence, (b) of the EStG under which the degree of detail and the form of evidence to be adduced by such a shareholder must be the same as those required where the dividend-paying company is established in the Member State of taxation of that shareholder.
               The tax authorities of the Member State of taxation are entitled to require that shareholder to provide documentary evidence enabling them to ascertain, clearly and precisely, whether the conditions for obtaining a tax credit under national legislation are met without having to make an estimate of that tax credit.

               3.

               The principle of effectiveness precludes national legislation like that arising from the combined provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph 175(2) of the amended Regulations on Taxes (Abgabenordnung) and the third sentence of Paragraph 97(9) of the Law introducing the Tax Code (Einführungsgesetz zur Abgabenordnung), which, retroactively and without any transitional period, does not permit the offsetting of foreign corporation tax imposed on dividends paid by a capital company established in another Member State by submitting either a certificate relating to that tax in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which the shareholder is fully taxable, or documentary evidence allowing the tax authorities of that Member State to determine, clearly and precisely, whether the conditions for obtaining that tax advantage were met. It is for the referring court to determine a reasonable period for the submission of such a certificate or documentary evidence.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-387/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Taxation of income from capital and immovable property — Resident and non-resident investment companies — Withholding tax — Setting off of withholding tax — Exemption of income from capital and movable property — Discrimination — Justifications)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-387/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Taxation of income from capital and immovable property - Resident and non-resident investment companies - Withholding tax - Setting off of withholding tax - Exemption of income from capital and movable property - Discrimination - Justifications)
   2012/C 399/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 and 63 TFUE and Articles 31 and 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement — Taxation of income from capital and immovable property — Exemption for investment companies — National legislation providing for a withholding tax on income from capital and immovable property (‘précompte mobilier’) — Discrimination against foreign investment companies which do not have a fixed establishment in the national territory inasmuch as they are not permitted to recover the amount paid by way of withholding tax — Lack of justification

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining different rules for the taxation of income from capital and movable property according to whether it is earned by resident investment companies or non-resident investment companies with no permanent establishment in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU, and Articles 31 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.


title: Case F-109/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 — Kerelov v Commission (Officials — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 — Kerelov v Commission
   (Case F-109/07)
   (Officials - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)
   (2008/C 64/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of EPSO's decision of 2 February 2007 not to transmit to the applicant information and documents relating to a competition and for compensation for the damage he has suffered.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.


title: Case C-196/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/10

         Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-196/07)
   (2007/C 155/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by not withdrawing without delay a number of conditions imposed by the decision of the National Energy Committee (CNE) (conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17) which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006)4279 final) and by not withdrawing by 19 January 2007 a number of conditions imposed by decision of the Ministry (amended conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15) which declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006)7039 final), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of both decisions;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Spanish authorities have not withdrawn a number of conditions imposed by the decision of the CNE (conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17) which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 and have not withdrawn the amended conditions imposed by decision of the Ministry (amended conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15) which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the second Commission Decision of 20 December 2006.
   The first decision required that the Kingdom of Spain withdraw the conditions in question ‘without delay’. Upon expiry of the period prescribed by the Commission for compliance with the reasoned opinion, almost six months had elapsed since the notification of the first decision, so that it is clear that the Kingdom of Spain had not complied ‘without delay’ with the obligation imposed by Article 2.
   The deadline of 19 January 2007 for compliance with the Commission's second decision expired without the Kingdom of Spain having withdrawn the conditions declared by that decision to be incompatible with Community law.
   It follows that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with Article 2 of the Commission's first decision and with Article 2 of its second decision.


title: Case T-462/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Flaherty v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/43

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Flaherty v Commission
   (Case T-462/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Flaherty (Kilronan, Ireland), (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4764 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Westward Isle, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 April 2008 in Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4764 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Westward Isle, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 April 2008 in Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructering the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant sumits that the Commission breached an esential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursunat to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. It particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application because of the greater volume under the main deck of the proposed new vessel compared to the Westward Isle is manifestly flawded, as is its assumption that the proposed new vessel’s ‘fishing effort’ will be grater than that of the Westward Isle.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the right to equal treatment. It is submitted that Commission’s rejection of the application because of the greater volume under the main deck of his proposed new vessel constitutes gross difference in treatment amounting to impermissible discrimination against him compared to the wholly different approach adopted regarding the treatment of some of the applications for additional safety tonnage accepted in Commission Decision No 2003/245, as well as regarding one of the applications initially rejected in that decision but then accepted in the Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4765 of 13 July 2010.


title: Case C-386/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano — Italy) — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano — Italy) — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1
   (Case C-386/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/60)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-571/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (FŁT-1)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/28

         Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (FŁT-1)
   (Case T-571/10)
   2011/C 63/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 in Case R 1387/2009-1;

               —

               order OHIM and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in its action before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark ‘FŁT-1’ for goods in Class 7 — application no 5026372

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IMPEXMETAL S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative trade marks ‘FŁT’ and national verbal and figurative trade marks ‘FŁT’ for goods in Class 7

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part and trade-mark application rejected in respect of several goods in Class 7

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division dismissed

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) by reason of a misappraisal of the similarity of the opposing marks; failure to have regard for the fact that the trade mark applied for constitutes part of the name of the applicant company, which has been used long before the date of the application, and is a historically well-founded designation distinguishing the applicant; and failure to take account of the long-lasting and peaceful co-existence of the trade mark applied for and the trade marks cited in opposition.

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


title: Case C-463/15 PPU: Order of the Court of 25 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary-ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 2(4) and Article 4.1 — Conditions of execution — National criminal law making the execution of a European arrest warrant subject to, in addition to double criminality, the condition that the criminal act is punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months under the law of the executing Member State)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/20

         Order of the Court of 25 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v A.
   (Case C-463/15 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary-ruling procedure - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 2(4) and Article 4.1 - Conditions of execution - National criminal law making the execution of a European arrest warrant subject to, in addition to double criminality, the condition that the criminal act is punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months under the law of the executing Member State))
   (2016/C 038/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: A.

      Operative part of the order

   Article 2(4) and Article 4.1 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant is subject, in the executing Member State, not only to the condition that the act for which the arrest warrant was issued constitutes an offence under the law of that Member State, but also to the condition that it is, under that same law, punishable by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least twelve months.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case T-292/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Confservizi v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Association of undertakings — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Confservizi v Commission
   (Case T-292/02) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Association of undertakings - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 180/67
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Confederazione Nazionale dei Servizi (Confservizi) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Tessarolo, A. Vianello, S. Gobbato and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Associazione Nazionale fra gli Industriali degli Acquedotti — Anfida (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Alberti, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the Confederazione Nazionale di Servizi (Confservizi) to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Associazione Nazionale fra gli Industriali degli Acquedotti — Anfida to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-186/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück
   (Case C-186/15)
   (2015/C 254/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück

      Defendant: Finanzamt Wiedenbrück

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the Member States obliged to apply the rounding-up rule in Article 175(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (1) in cases where the deductible proportion is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods set out in headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Article 173(2) of that directive?

               2.

               Are the Member States obliged to apply the rounding-up rule in Article 175(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax in the case of an input tax adjustment made in accordance with Article 184 et seq. of that directive in cases where the deductible proportion within the meaning of Article 175(1) of that directive is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods set out in headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Article 173(2) of that directive or in accordance with headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment?

               3.

               Are the Member States obliged to adjust deductions in accordance with Article 184 et seq. of Directive 2006/112/EC by applying the rounding-up rule — second question — in such a way as to round the input VAT amount subject to adjustment up or down to a whole percentage number in favour of the taxable person?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-351/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Nike European Operations Netherlands and Others v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/40

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Nike European Operations Netherlands and Others v Commission
   (Case T-351/17)
   (2017/C 249/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands), Hugo Boss AG (Metzingen, Germany), Timberland Europe BV (Almelo, Netherlands), New Balance Athletic Shoes (UK) Ltd (Warrington, United Kingdom), Wolverine Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Wolverine Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017, L 64, p. 72);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by the contested regulation: (i) lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and the Basic Regulation (1) and infringes Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation; (ii) is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the applicants are concerned; (iii) is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the European Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment of the applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims and violated the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-105/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Sandoz v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Sandoz v Commission
   (Case T-105/04) (1)

   (2008/C 37/53)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-657/16: Action brought on 17 September 2016 — Márquez Alentà v EUIPO — (Fiesta Hotels & Resorts) (representation of an ant)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/24

         Action brought on 17 September 2016 — Márquez Alentà v EUIPO — (Fiesta Hotels & Resorts) (representation of an ant)
   (Case T-657/16)
   (2016/C 410/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Márquez Alentà (Cervera, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative EU mark (Representation of an ant) — Application for registration No 12 715 661

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2016 in Case R 1242/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the partial upholding of application R 1242/2015-1 and the opposition for certain goods applied for in Class 16 and services in Class 35;

               —

               consequently, confirm the Opposition Division’s decision and therefore grant the trade mark for all of the goods and services applied for in Classes 16, 35, 41 and 43;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

      Plea in law

               —

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