title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2003 in Case T-73/03: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Application manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 184/36               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                                       of 23 April 2003
order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            in Case T-73/03: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                        of the European Communities (1)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs              (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Application
      incurred by the Parliament and the Council.                                                   manifestly unfounded)
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/82)
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-73/03, Bernard Zaoui, residing in Combs La Ville
                                                                            (France), Lucien Zaoui, residing in Netanya (Israel) and Deborah
                                                                            Zaoui, residing in Ramat Gan (Israel), represented by
                                                                            J.A. Buchinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 bourg, against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            — application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered
                                                                            by the applicants following an attack carried out in Netanya
                         of 30 April 2003                                   (Israel) on 27 March 2002 — the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                            Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, H. Legal and
                                                                            M.E. Martins Ribero, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
in Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH v Council of the
                                                                            on 23 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        European Union (1)
                                                                            1)    The application is rejected.
(Action for annulment — Article 3(1) and first indent of
Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/10/EC — Structure and rate
of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco — Manifestly                 2)    The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
                            inadmissible)
                                                                            (1) OJ 2003 C 124.
                          (2003/C 184/81)
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH, established in Wald-                 Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace Limited
shut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,                and Nexgen Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY)
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Gijón and                    against the Commission of the European Communities
M. Simm) — application for annulment of Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002 amending
Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the                                            (Case T-121/03)
structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured
tobacco (OJ 2002 L 46, p. 26) and, in the alternative, of the                                          (2003/C 184/83)
first indent of Article 4(2) of that directive — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,                                   (Language of the case: English)
Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace
                                                                            Limited, London, United Kingdom, and Nexgen Group Limited
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (trading as ECOTRICITY), Gloucestershire, United Kingdom,
                                                                            represented by P. Lasok QC, Mr J. Turner and Ms R. Haynes,
3.    There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to       Barristers.
      intervene.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 191 10.8.02.
                                                                            —     annul the Contested Decision and order the Commission
                                                                                to pay the Applicants costs.


title: Case C-50/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/24

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-50/10)
   2010/C 100/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and C. Zadra, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, (1) by failing to take the necessary measures ‘to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of that directive or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions’, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Directive 2008/1/EC operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC lays down that Member States are to take the necessary measures ‘to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions’, that not later than 30 October 2007 existing installations, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Directive 2008/1/EC, operate in accordance with the requirements set out in that directive.
   However, in January 2010 — and, more specifically, at the time when the present action was brought — the Italian Government had still not fully complied with the obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.


24 . 8 . 96          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/3
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           Swearing of the oath by a new member of the Court of First Instance
                                                            ( 96/C 247/03 )
            Marc Jaeger, appointed judge of the Court of First Instance by decision of the representatives of the
            Governments of the Member States of the European Communities on 8 July 1 996 ( 1 ), took the oath
            before the Court of Justice on 11 July 1996 .
            (■) OJ No L 178 , 17 . 7 . 1996 , p . 32 .
                      Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of Judges to Chambers
                                                            ( 96/C 247/04 )
            The Court of First Instance has adopted the following decision in consequence of the departure from
            office of Judge Schintgen , President of Chamber, and the taking-up of office by Judge Jaeger on
            11 July 1996 :
            Judge Garcia-Valdecasas is designated President of the Fifth Chamber and of the Fifth Chamber,
            Extended Composition, and Judge Jaeger is assigned to the Fourth Chamber, Extended
            Composition, the Fifth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition , for the period
            from 12 July 1996 to 30 September 1996 .
            Consequently, the composition of the Chambers decided on 19 September 1995 ( OJ No C 274 of
            19 October 1 995 , p. 1 1 ), as amended on 1 1 January 1996 ( OJ No C 46 of 1 7 February 1996 , p. 18 ),
            is altered as follows :
            Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
            Mr Lenaerts , President of Chamber, Ms Lindh , Mr Azizi , Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
            Fifth Chamber:
            Mr Garcia-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Mr Azizi and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
            Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
            Mr Garcia-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili , Mr Azizi , Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Jaeger,
            Judges .
            For cases in which the written procedure was completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held
            or fixed before 12 July 1996 by those Chambers as previously constituted , but without Judge
            Schintgen, President of Chamber, they shall continue to sit with the same composition as
            before .


title: Case T-535/08: Action brought on 8 December 2008 — Tuzzi fashion v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/28

         Action brought on 8 December 2008 — Tuzzi fashion v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)
   (Case T-535/08)
   (2009/C 55/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Tuzzi fashion GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2008 in case R 1561/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Emidio Tucci’, for goods in class 25

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1 078 843 of the word mark ‘TUZZI’ for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 496 835 with effect in Austria, France, the Benelux countries and Poland of the word mark ‘TUZZI’ for goods in class 25; Company name ‘TUZZI FASHION GMBH’ used in the course of trade in Germany for clothing.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 73 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to address in a comprehensive manner the arguments put forward by the applicant and to objectively state the reasons on which its decision has been based; Infringement of Article 74 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to restrict itself in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments put forward by the parties; Infringement of Article 79 of Council Regulation 40/94 since in its assessment of the defence of abuse of rights raised by the applicant the Board of Appeal failed to take into account general principles of procedural law recognized in the Member States.


title: Case T-328/12: Action brought on 24 July 2012 — Mundipharma v OHIM — AFP Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/34

         Action brought on 24 July 2012 — Mundipharma v OHIM — AFP Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic)
   (Case T-328/12)
   2012/C 287/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg an der Lahn, Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AFP Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Takapuna, New Zealand)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2012 in Case R 1788/2010-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: AFP Pharmaceuticals Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Maxigesic’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 7 056 104

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘OXYGESIC’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the opposition was rejected

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-290/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Deutsche Post AG

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Deutsche Post AG
   (Case C-290/06)
   (2006/C 261/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Third party: Deutsche Post AG
   Question referred
   Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

      (1)  OJ L 176, p. 21.


title: Case T-31/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Vincent Bouillez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2012 in Case F-75/11, Vincent Bouillez v Council

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Vincent Bouillez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2012 in Case F-75/11, Vincent Bouillez v Council
   (Case T-31/13 P)
   2013/C 86/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vincent Bouillez (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F-75/11 Vincent Bouillez v Council;

               —

               annul the decision not to promote the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in so far as the CST held, without ascertaining whether the contested decision at first instance complied with the duty to state reasons for a decision whereas the CST did not request any evidence from the Council as to the actual application of the criteria in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the comparative examination of the examination of the applicant’s merits as compared with those of other officials eligible for promotion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST based its decision on mere statements by the Council that the level of responsibilities had indeed been taken into account in the comparative examination of the merits in order to conclude that the applicant has not shown the contrary in spite of information provided by the applicant in the measures of organisation of procedure, from which it was clear that several officials who were promoted did not have a level of responsibilities or a harmonised mark as high as the applicant’s or a higher number of languages used (paragraphs 45 and 46 of the contested decision).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging contradictory reasoning, in so far as the CST could not state on one hand that the Council rightly decided to carry out a fresh comparative examination of the merits of all Grade AST 6 officials eligible for promotion in promotion year 2007 and then hold that the Council was not required to take into account the merits of a specific official who had already been promoted in that year and whose promotion had become final (concerning paragraphs 69 and 70 of the judgment under appeal).
               The applicant also asserts that the CST has committed an error in law by failing to classify the facts, on the basis of the evidence in the file, as constituting a manifest error of assessment.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/50

         Action brought on 11 February 2004 by Marie Tzirani against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-45/04)
   (2004/C 94/137)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 February 2004 by Marie Tzirani, residing in Brussels, represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2003 to reject the applicant's candidature for the A2 post of Director of the ‘Staff Regulations: policy, management and advisory services’ Directorate;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case challenges the Commission's refusal to accept her candidature for the A2 post of Director of the ‘Staff Regulations: policy, management and advisory services’ Directorate.
   In support of her claims, she alleges:

               —

               infringement of Articles 7, 14, 29(1)(a) and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the rules for nominating officials to grades A1 and A2;

               —

               misuse of powers in the present case;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment by the Appointing Authority;

               —

               failure to observe the principles of legality, entitlement to reasonable career prospects and equal treatment for men and women.

         The applicant emphasises in particular the appropriateness of her professional profile for the post in question, as described in the vacancy notice, in contrast to that of the person finally appointed, who can invoke only one experience of working in a cabinet.


title: Case T-213/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Dismissal — Breakdown of trust — Statement of reasons — Distortion of the evidence)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament
   (Case T-213/10) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Dismissal - Breakdown of trust - Statement of reasons - Distortion of the evidence)
   2011/C 347/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: P (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: initially S. Seyr and R. Ignătescu, then S. Seyr, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 in Case F-89/08 P v Parliament, requesting that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Ms P to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case F-18/05 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2009 — D v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/67

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2009 — D v Commission
   (Case F-18/05 RENV) (1)

   2009/C 282/128

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005, p. 25.


title: Case T-454/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  24 March 2006  — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 91/414/EEC — Admissibility)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/13

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2006 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission
   (Case T-454/05 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 121/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d'Or, France) and Philagro France SAS (Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d'Or) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty, Agent)
   Re:
   Application, first, for suspension of a decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission of 20 October 2005 and, second, for an order for interim measures concerning the administrative procedure conducted before the Commission for the inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p.1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-30/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/50

         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-30/15)
   (2015/C 146/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision, adopted pursuant to the annulling judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2014 in Case F-53/13, Diamantopoulos v EEAS, not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise, and the claim for damages for the non-material and material harm allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare unlawful the decision of 29 April 2014 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 25  000;

               —

               order EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case C-522/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Telekomunikacja Polska SA w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Electronic communications — Telecommunications services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Directive 2002/22/EC — Making the conclusion of a contract for the provision of services contingent on the conclusion of a contract for the supply of other services — Prohibition — Broadband internet)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Telekomunikacja Polska SA w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-522/08) (1)

   (Electronic communications - Telecommunications services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Directive 2002/22/EC - Making the conclusion of a contract for the provision of services contingent on the conclusion of a contract for the supply of other services - Prohibition - Broadband internet)
   2010/C 113/16
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telekomunikacja Polska SA w Warszawie

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Article 95 EC; of recital 13 in the preamble to, and Articles 5 and 8 of, Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7); of the provisions of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21); of recitals 1 and 28 in the preamble to, and Articles 1(3), 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 19 of, Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘Framework Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), and of recital 26 in the preamble to, and Articles 16 and 17 of, Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108 p. 51) — National legislation prohibiting any provider of telecommunication services from making the conclusion of a contract for the provision of services contingent on the purchase of another service — Conclusion of a contract for the provision of broadband internet access made subject to the conclusion of a contract for the provision of telephone services

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 57(1)(1) of the Polish Law on Telecommunications (ustawa — Prawo telekomunikacyjne) of 16 July 2004, in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings, which prohibits making the conclusion of a contract for the provision of services contingent on the conclusion, by the end user, of a contract for the provision of other services.
   However, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business to consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with certain exceptions, and without taking account of the specific circumstances, imposes a general prohibition of combined offers made by a vendor to a consumer.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-179/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/59

         Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)
   (Case T-179/17)
   (2017/C 144/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain), Jean Yves Tariot (Alicante, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NYOUX’ — Application for registration No 12 931 739

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 in Case R 718/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Molkerei Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-109/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/25
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Fidu                 Action brought on 9 April 1997 by C. A. S. Succhi di
ciaire Myson, Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European               Frutta S.p.a. against Commission of the European
Parliament (Agents : Manfred Peter and Norbert Lorenz )                                            Communities
— application for annulment of decisions of the European                                        ( Case T-106/97)
Parliament characterizing as irregular the absences of the
applicant from work from March to October 1995 — the                                              ( 97/C 199/70 )
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;                               (Language of the case: Italian)
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 March 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
I. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Instance of the European Communities on 9 April 1997
                                                                       by C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta S.p.a ., represented by Alberto
                                                                       Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian
2 . The parties are to bear their own costs.                           Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of
                                                                       the Venice Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                       Mr Tizzano's Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon.
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the Commission decision of 22 July 1996 (No
                                                                            C(96 ) 1916 ) concerning the supply of fruit juices and
                                                                           jams for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan,
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        ( Second Chamber)                              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                           of 2 May 1997                                   proceedings .
in Case T-136/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
              of the European Communities (*)
(Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of                     The applicant is the same as that which, in Case T-191/
                           inadmissibility)                            96 ( ] ), contests the ex post facto amendment of one of the
                            ( 97/C 199/69
                                                                       essential points in the notice of tender relating to the
                                                                       supply of fruit juices and jams for the peoples of Armenia
                                                                       and Azerbaijan. It points out in this regard that, while the
               (Language of the case: French)                          amendment contested in Case T-191 /96 consisted in the
                                                                       possibility of withdrawing from intervention stocks fresh
                                                                       products other than those specified in the notice of tender,
In Case T-136/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, having its                  in particular peaches, that challenged in the present action
registered office in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux,             is an amendment, adopted by way of the contested
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                       decision, which extends this possibility of substitution to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                    nectarines .
Zithe , against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier ) —
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
application for the annulment of the Commission's                      those relied on in Case T-191 /96 .
decision of 19 July 19 96 allegedly rejecting requests by the
applicant for confidential treatment of certain information
provided to the Commission in the context of Article 11                (>) OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 15 .
of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation
implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ,
English Special Edition, 1959-62 ( I ), p. 87) — the Court
of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997,               Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Molkerei
the operative part of which is as follows:                             Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                               ( Case T-109/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/71 )
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
by Molkerei Großbraunshain GmbH, whose registered                    In this action, the applicants challenge the entry
office is at Harta bei Altenburg, Thüringen ( Germany),              of the designation 'Altenburger Ziegenkäse ', with an
and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH, whose registered office                excessively widely-drawn geographical area pursuant to
is at Lumpzig bei Altenburg, Thüringen ( Germany ),                  the notification given by the Federal Republic of Germany,
represented by Michael Loschelder, Rechtsanwalt,                     in the register of designations which are protected
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            designations of origin under Article 17 of Regulation
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .                             ( EEC ) No 2081/92 . Such registration would lead to
                                                                     undertakings not established in the Altenburg Land being
The applicants claim that the Court should :                         able to use that designation for their products, thereby
                                                                     causing continual damage to the applicants such as to
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 123/97 of                    threaten their existence . Through the use of the simplified
     23 January 1997 supplementing the Annex to                      procedure under Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /
     Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 on the                  92 , which the applicants maintain was an erroneous
     registration of geographical indications and                    choice in both substantive and procedural law, the
     designations of origin under the procedure laid down            applicants were unlawfully deprived of their right to a
     in Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so           proper hearing. They were also unlawfully discriminated
     far as, in respect of the product 'Altenburger                  against, since the facts in this case reveal similar treatment
     Ziegenkäse ( PDO )' referred to in Part A of the Annex          being unjustifiably given to dissimilar situations and also a
     to the regulation, the notification by the Federal              misleading of consumers incompatible with Article 2 ( 1 )
     Republic of Germany of 26 January 1994, as                      ( a ) of Directive ( EEC ) No 79/ 112 .
     supplemented on 7 August 1 996 , includes in the
     designation of the relevant geographical area under
     para . 5 (c ) of such notification the Landkreise ( rural       The applicants maintain that the question at issue is not
     districts ) of Gera, Zeitz, Geithain, Grimma, Wurzen,           whether the designation ' Altenburger Ziegenkäse ' had
     Borna and the City of Gera ( or, to use the                     become ' normal' for the competition 'through use', since
     nomenclature arising from the redrawing of                      that designation was not registered under the trade mark
     boundaries and renaming of districts pursuant to                law of the former German Democratic Republic.
     administrative reforms in the relevant Bundesländer of           Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 protected only designations
     Thüringen, Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt, in so far as              or statements of geographical origin and not trademarks
     it includes the Landkreise Greiz and Muldentalkreis,             or generic names .
     parts of the Kreise Leipziger Land and Burgenlandkreis
     and the City of Gera );
                                                                      Finally, the applicants argue that the adoption of
     or, in the alternative                                           Regulation ( EC ) No 123/97 constitutes a misuse of powers
                                                                      by the Commission, since, by simply adopting the
     annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 123/97 of                  notification by the Federal Republic of Germany, the
     23 January 1997 supplementing the Annex to                       Commission thereby adopted the extraneous consideration
     Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 on the                   in that notification, allowing an undertaking outside the
     registration     of geographical       indications    and        area to use the designation. The decision was also legally
     designations of origin under the procedure laid down             erroneous since the Commission clearly made no use of its
     in Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so            discretion provided for in Article 15 of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2081 /92 .
      far as the product 'Altenburger Ziegenkäse ( PDO )' is
      named in Part A of the Annex to the regulation, with
     the proviso that, until such time as the register is
      altered pursuant to an application by the Federal
      Republic of Germany to alter the designation on
      account of a fresh delimination of the geographical
      area, the description of the geographical area in the
      notification by the Federal Republic of Germany of              Action brought on 14 April 1997 by Kneissl Dachstein
      26 January 1994, as supplemented on 7 August 1996,              Sportartikel AG against the Commission of the European
      is to be retained in relation to the Landkreise of                                         Communities
      Altenburg and Schmolln ( or, under the new
                                                                                Case T-l 10/97 )
      nomenclature, in relation to the Landkreis Altenburger
      Land ) and in relation to the description of the product                                  ( 97/C 199/72 )
      in other respects,
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: German)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
 Großbraunshain GmbH is the only undertaking in the                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Altenburger Land region which produces 'Altenburger                   Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 1997
 Ziegenkäse' ( Altenburg goats' cheese ) on an industrial              by Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel AG, whose registered
 basis . Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH holds all the shares in              office is at Molln, Austria, represented by Georg Diwok,
 Großbraunshain GmbH .                                                 Rechtsanwalt, Vienna .


title: Case C-108/08 P: Order of the President of the Court of 22 April 2008 — Portela & Companhia SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Juan Torrens Cuadrado, Josep Gilbert Sanz

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 April 2008 — Portela & Companhia SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Juan Torrens Cuadrado, Josep Gilbert Sanz
   (Case C-108/08 P) (1)

   (2008/C 209/64)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case T-505/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ASTALOY — Earlier Community word mark HASTELLOY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Coexistence of trade marks)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)
   (Case T-505/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ASTALOY - Earlier Community word mark HASTELLOY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Coexistence of trade marks)
   2013/C 147/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Höganäs AB (Höganäs, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Haynes International, Inc. (Kokomo, Indiana (United States)) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2010 (Case R 1530/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Haynes International, Inc. and Höganäs AB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Höganäs AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-170/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/60/EC — Money laundering and terrorist financing — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-170/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 100/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken or communicated, within the prescribed period, all the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.07.2009.


title: Case T-545/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Thoss v Court of Auditors (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Lateness — Absence of excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Thoss v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-545/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Lateness - Absence of excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2009/C 220/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Thérèse Nicole Thoss (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy and J.-M. Stenier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 20 March 2006 refusing to allocate to the applicant, the widow of a former Member of the Court of Auditors, a survivor’s pension on the ground that the condition that the couple had to have been married for five years at the time of death has not been satisfied (case registered as F-46/08 and referred by the Civil Service Tribunal).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mrs Thérèse Nicole Thoss is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008 (formerly Case F-46/08).


title: Case T-36/15: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Hispasat v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Correction of that decision after the action had been brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/25

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Hispasat v Commission
   (Case T-36/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Correction of that decision after the action had been brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 111/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hispasat, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Balcells Cartagena, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 concerning State aid SA.27408 (C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009) granted by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on SES Astra’s application for leave to intervene.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Hispasat, SA.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-279/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 22 July 2009 — DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 22 July 2009 — DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-279/09)
   2009/C 267/54
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Kammergericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH

      Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Question referred

   The following question is referred, pursuant to Article 234 EC, to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling:
   In view of the fact that Member States may not, through the structuring of conditions under national law governing the award of damages and of the procedure for pursuing a claim seeking to establish State liability under Community law, make the award of compensation in accordance with the principles of State liability under Community law virtually impossible or excessively difficult, must there be reservations with regard to a national rule under which the pursuit of a claim before the courts is subject to the making of an advance payment in respect of costs, and a legal person, which is unable to make that advance payment, does not qualify for legal aid?


title: Case C-575/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias (Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Profession of physiotherapist — Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications — Article 49 TFEU)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias
   (Case C-575/11) (1)

   (Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Profession of physiotherapist - Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications - Article 49 TFEU)
   2013/C 225/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos

      Defendant: Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU, of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Refusal to grant authorisation giving access to the regulated profession of physiotherapist in a host Member State to one of that State’s nationals who does not have a diploma to that effect, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/51/EEC, but does have qualifications for engaging in a similar profession that is recognised in another Member State — Possibility of partial access, limited to certain activities covered by the profession

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes partial access to the profession of physiotherapist, regulated in the host Member State, by a national of that State who obtained, in another Member State, a qualification such as that of medical masseur-hydrotherapist, authorising him to carry out, in that second Member State, part of the activities coming under the profession of physiotherapist, when the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality the applicant should follow a full programme of education and training in order to pursue the profession of physiotherapist. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-51/02: Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
20.4.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 20 February 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the United King-
                                                                                dom
Pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 21 December 2000.                                                                        (Case C-52/02)
(1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.
(2) See page 4 of this OJ.                                                                         (2002/C 97/11)
                                                                          An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission                      2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       represented by Michael Shotter, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                            (Case C-51/02)
                            (2002/C 97/10)                                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Justice of the European Communities on 19 February 2002 by                      Directive 2000/71/EC (1) of 7 November 2000 to adapt
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                         the measuring methods as laid down in Annexes I, II,
by Marie Wolfcarius and Michael Shotter, acting as Agents,                      III and IV to Directive 98/70/EC (2) of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                      Parliament and of the Council to technical progress as
                                                                                foreseen in Article 10 of that Directive or, in any event,
                                                                                by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    and 2(2) of this Directive;
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 1999/52/EC(1) of 26 May 1999
      adapting to technical progress Council Directive                    2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
      96/96/EC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor
      vehicles and their trailers, or in any event by failing to
      inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                          Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
                                                                          implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
                                                                          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to            expired on 1 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by             having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the             directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 October 2000 without Ireland having enacted
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 287, 14.11.2000, p. 46.
                                                                          (2) of 13 October 1998 (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 58).
(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 26.
(2) of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1).


title: Case C-269/10: Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France)) — Accor Services France v Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France)) — Accor Services France v Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard
   (Case C-269/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/55
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-293/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer — Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings — Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG
   (Case C-293/10) (1)

   (Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer - Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings - Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)
   2011/C 211/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gebhard Stark

      Respondent: DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Insurance contract providing that, in accordance with national legislation, the person taking out legal expenses insurance is required to choose a lawyer established at the place of the court before which the proceedings are to be conducted

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which it may be agreed that a person covered by legal expenses insurance may select, in order to have his interests represented in administrative or judicial proceedings, only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority having jurisdiction at first instance, on condition that, in order not to render meaningless the insured person’s freedom to choose the person instructed to represent him, that restriction relates only to the extent of the cover by the legal insurance provider in respect of costs linked to the involvement of a representative and that the reimbursement actually provided by that insurer is sufficient, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case T-275/11: Action brought on 27 May 2011 — TF1 v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/32

         Action brought on 27 May 2011 — TF1 v Commission
   (Case T-275/11)
   2011/C 232/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               by way of measures of organisation of procedure, in accordance with Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the production of the documents which the Commission used in order to conclude that public financing was proportional and transparent in character, namely: the reports on the implementation of Articles 2 and 3 fo the decree concerning the years 2007 and 2008 and the draft report referred to in Article 2 for the year 2009, and of the confidential version of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/140/EU of 20 July 2010 declaring State aid in the form of an annual budgetary grant which the French authorities plan to implement in favour of France Télévisions compatible with the common market.
   In support of its action, the applicant makes three pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea claims misinterpretation of the link between the new taxes envisaged for the reform of public broadcasting and financing of France Télévisions. The applicant cites evidence of a binding link between, on the one hand, the tax on advertising messsages and the tax on electronic communications and, on the other hand, the budgetary grants paid to France Télévisions, both from a legal point of view, taking account of all the relevant national legislation, and from an economic point of view, taking account of the mechanism for determining the amount of the aid, of the rate of the tax and of its actual use.

               2.

               The second plea claims that there is a risk of overcompensation linked to the mechanism for financing France Télévisions. The applicant complains, first, that, not having access to several administrative documents, it was not in a position usefully to exercise its right of action and, secondly, that the Commission misinterpreted Article 106(2) TFEU by not taking account of the condition of economic efficiency in the provision of public service, in the context of its analysis of the legality of the contested measure.

               3.

               The third plea claims failure to take account of other rules of the TFEU and secondary law. The applicant argues, first, that the tax on electronic communications is contrary to Article 110 TFEU; second, that the disputed taxes constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in that the accumulation of specific taxes on the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors largely limits the possibility for broadcasting and telecommunications operators to carry on their economic activities in France; and, third, that the disputed measure is contrary to Directive 2002/20 of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services in so far as it places a tax on telecoms operators who do not comply with the conditions laid down by the directive.


title: Case T-37/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — Banca Sanpaolo Imi v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — Banca Sanpaolo Imi v Commission
   (Case T-37/02) (1)

   (2007/C 82/109)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Fourth Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Case F-137/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2009 — Sergio v Commission (Staff case — Rights and obligations — Freedom of association — Protocol of Agreement between the Commission and the trade union or professional organisations — Individual decisions on secondment/release from service based on a protocol — Act adversely affecting an official — Locus standi — Official acting on his own account and not on the account of a trade union — Admissibility — Notification of the rejection of the complaint to the applicants’ lawyer — Starting point for the time-limit for bringing an action)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2009 — Sergio v Commission
   (Case F-137/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Rights and obligations - Freedom of association - Protocol of Agreement between the Commission and the trade union or professional organisations - Individual decisions on secondment/release from service based on a protocol - Act adversely affecting an official - Locus standi - Official acting on his own account and not on the account of a trade union - Admissibility - Notification of the rejection of the complaint to the applicants’ lawyer - Starting point for the time-limit for bringing an action)
   2009/C 193/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giovanni Sergio (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the ‘Protocol of Agreement between the trade union or professional organisations and the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration (DG ADMIN)’ and the decisions of the appointing authority confirmed by the Protocol of 19 December 2006 and the decision of 14 November 2006 and, second, a claim for damages in the form of a symbolic EUR 1.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Sergio, Mr Blanchard, Mr Marquez-Garcia, Mr Scheuer and Mr Wurzler to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008, p. 37.


title: Case C-20/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 13 January 2010 — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 13 January 2010 — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-20/10)
   2010/C 134/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vino Cosimo Damiano

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC (1) preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts?

               2.

               In order to justify a reformatio in pejus of the previous rules on fixed-term contracts and to preclude the operation of the prohibition laid down in Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC, is it sufficient for the national legislature to pursue any objective, provided that it is an objective other than that of implementing that directive, or is it necessary for such an objective not only to merit at least equal protection to the objective in respect of which penalties are imposed but also for it to be expressly ‘stated’?

               3.

               Does Clause 3(1) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts?

               4.

               Does the general Community principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which places employees of Poste Italiane SpA at a disadvantage not only vis-à-vis that company but also other undertakings in the same sector or in other sectors?

               5.

               Do Article 82 [EC], first paragraph, and Article 86(1) and (2) [EC] preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which benefits only Poste Italiane SpA (an entirely publicly owned entity), giving rise to potential abuse of a dominant position?

               6.

               If the answer to the foregoing questions is in the affirmative, is the national court required to disapply (or not to apply) the national rules which are contrary to Community law?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-220/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2008 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Commission (Action for damages — Limitation period — Article 46 of the Statute of the Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2008 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Commission
   (Case T-220/07) (1)

   (Action for damages - Limitation period - Article 46 of the Statute of the Court - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 183/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (Beuvillers, France) (represented by: D. Schönberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and N. Yerrell, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of various alleged illegal acts complained of against the Community institutions.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 May 2003 in Case C-463/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — System of administrative approval relating to privatised undertakings)

text:
5.7.2003                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 158/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    Community law does not preclude the shipment to mainland
                                                                                Portugal of white sugar produced in the Azores from sugarbeet
                                                                                harvested in the Azores and which receives the Community aid
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                provided for in Article 25 of Regulation No 1600/92 up to a
                                                                                limit of 10 000 tonnes of production per year.
                            of 15 May 2003
                                                                             4.    Community law does not preclude the shipment to mainland
in Case C-282/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          Portugal of white sugar produced in the Azores from raw beet
the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Ponta Delgada):                                sugar imported under the specific supply arrangements provided
Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) v Sociedade de                              for under Title I of Regulation No 1600/92, provided that it
        Indústrias Agricolas Açoreanas SA (Sinaga) (1)                             corresponds to traditional shipments within the meaning of the
                                                                                second paragraph of Article 8 of that regulation.
(Sugar — Decision 91/315/EEC — Poseima Programme —
Specific measures in favour of the Azores and Madeira —                      (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 — Shipment to the rest of the
Community of white sugar produced in the Azores from
sugarbeet harvested there or from raw beet sugar imported
exempt from levies and/or customs duties — Meaning of
‘processing of products’ — Meaning of ‘traditional shipment
                  to the rest of the Community’)
                            (2003/C 158/03)                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                   of 13 May 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-463/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                     in the European Court Reports)                                             ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
In Case C-282/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — System of administrative
                                                                                approval relating to privatised undertakings)
EC by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Ponta Delgada
(Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA                                              (2003/C 158/04)
(RAR) and Sociedade de Indústrias Agricolas Açoreanas SA
(Sinaga), on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural
products (OJ 1992 L 173, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                                              in the European Court Reports)
C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             In Case C-463/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: M. Patakia and M. Desantes, and, subsequently,
1.    The refining of raw beet sugar into white sugar must be                M. Patakia and G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
      considered to be the processing of a product within the meaning        N. Díaz Abad), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
      of the second paragraph of Article 8 of Council Regulation             and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by D. Wyatt,
      (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific                   QC, and J. Crow, barrister): Application for a declaration that
      measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain                the provisions of Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (2), together
      agricultural products.                                                 with Article 1, of Ley 5/1995 de régimen jurídico de enajena-
                                                                             ción de participaciones públicas en determinadas empresas
2.    Shipments which, at the time of the entry into force of                (Law 5/1995 of 23 March 1995 on the legal arrangements for
      Regulation No 1600/92 on 1 July 1992, were ongoing,                    disposal of public shareholdings in certain undertakings (BOE
      regular and significant are traditional shipments to the rest of       No 72 of 25 March 1995, p. 9366) and the implementing
      the Community within the meaning of the second paragraph of            royal decrees enacted under Article 4 of Law 5/1995 (Royal
      Article 8 of Regulation No 1600/92. It is for the referring            Decree No 3/1996 of 15 January 1996 concerning Repsol SA
      court to assess whether that was the case for the shipments of         (BOE No 14 of 16 January 1996, p. 1133), Royal Decree No 8/
      sugar from the Azores to mainland Portugal and to Madeira              1997 of 10 January 1997 concerning Telefónica de España SA
      between 1907 and 1992 referred to in the table set out in the          and Telefónica Servicios Móviles SA (BOE No 10 of 11 January
      order for reference.                                                   1997, p. 907), Royal Decree No 40/1998 of 16 January 1998
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
concerning Corporación Bancaria de España SA (Argentaria)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(BOE No 15 of 17 January 1998, p. 1851), Royal Decree
No 552/1998 of 2 April 1998 concerning Tabacalera SA (BOE
No 80 of 3 April 1998, p. 11370), and Royal Decree No 929/                                                of 13 May 2003
1998 of 14 May 1998 concerning Endesa SA (BOE No 129 of
30 May 1998, p. 17939), in so far as they implement a system
of prior administrative approval                                             in Case C-98/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland ( 1)
—     which is not justified by any overriding requirements of
      the general interest,
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Rights attaching to the United
—     which does not lay down objective and stable criteria                                Kingdom’s Special Share in BAA plc)
      which have been made public, and
                                                                                (2003/C 158/05)
—     which does not comply with the principle of pro-
      portionality,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
are incompatible with Article 43 EC and Article 56 EC, the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-
P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann                                      in the European Court Reports)
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 13 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                             In Case C-98/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: F. Benyon and M. Patakia) v United Kingdom of Great
                                                                             Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: R. Magrill, assisted by
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of Article 2     D. Wyatt, QC, and J. Crow, barrister): Application for a
      and Article 3(1) and (2) of Ley 5/1995 de régimen jurídico             declaration that the provisions limiting the possibility of
      de enajenación de participaciones públicas en determinadas             acquiring voting shares in BAA plc as well as the procedure
      empresas (Law 5/1995 on the legal arrangements for disposal            requiring consent to the disposal of the company’s assets, to
      of public shareholdings in certain undertakings) of 23 March           control of its subsidiaries and to winding-up are incompatible
      1995, as well as Royal Decree No 3/1996 of 15 January                  with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, the Court, composed of:
      1996 concerning Repsol SA, Royal Decree No 8/1997 of                   G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
      10 January 1997 concerning Telefónica de España SA and                 and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      Telefónica Servicios Móviles SA, Royal Decree No 40/1998 of            D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
      16 January 1998 concerning Corporación Bancaria de España              F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges;
      SA (Argentaria), Royal Decree No 552/1998 of 2 April                   D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
      1998 concerning Tabacalera SA, and Royal Decree No 929/                Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 May 2003, in
      1998 of 14 May 1998 concerning Endesa SA, in so far as                 which it:
      they implement a system of prior administrative approval, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 56 EC;                                                         1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions limiting
                                                                                the possibility of acquiring voting shares in BAA plc as well as
                                                                                the procedure requiring consent to the disposal of the company’s
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                                assets, to control of its subsidiaries and to winding-up, the
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                             2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


C 84/54               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.4.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/01 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-119/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/95)                                                    (2002/C 84/98)
By order of 23 October 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-48/01: Commission of the
                                                                  from the register of Case C-119/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                  European Communities v Finland.
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and
                           C-52/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-244/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/96)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/99)
By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and C-52/01:            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Beta Television          from the register of Case C-244/01: Commission of the
SpA (Videomusic/TMC2) and Internazionale SpA.                     European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-118/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-336/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/100)
By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-118/01: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-336/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case C-204/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — István Tivadar Szabó v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax debts accumulated by a commercial company — Director of that company could not be recruited to be a director of another company — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Interpretation requested of provisions of EU law that are inapplicable — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Hypothetical questions — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/7

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — István Tivadar Szabó v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-204/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax debts accumulated by a commercial company - Director of that company could not be recruited to be a director of another company - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Interpretation requested of provisions of EU law that are inapplicable - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Hypothetical questions - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 431/12)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: István Tivadar Szabó

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to provide an answer to the third question posed by the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary).

               2.

               The other questions posed by the aforementioned court are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.