title: Case T-641/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/30

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission
   (Case T-641/11 P)
   2012/C 49/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and:

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 11 November 2004 in so far as it determines the appelant’s grading;

               —

               Order the Commission to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      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 that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to examine the plea of infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the paragraph 3 of the said provision related to the right for damage compensation, namely its conditions of ‘fairness’ and ‘timeliness’ for handling the appellant's affairs in relation to a number of factual situations, although such a plea of infringement had been explicitly raised.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously declared as inadmissible the plea of infringement of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1) with its specific legal conditions providing that not just equal, but, in fact, ‘identical conditions of recruitment and service career shall apply to all officials’.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to consider the legally acquired continuity of career of former temporary agents, as clarified by the Court of Justice in its recent case-law (case C-177/10). In addition, the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously declared as inadmissible the plea of illegality of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations arguing that the appellant had not been graded under that provision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 December 2000 in Case C-448/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police, Belley, France): criminal proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont (Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Purely internal situation — Manufacture and marketing of Emmenthal cheese without rind)

text:
10.3.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/5
failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regu-                    D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
lations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives                       judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to
a competitive environment in telecommunications (OJ 1997
L 295, p. 23), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),               precludes a Member State from applying to products imported from
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the                      another Member State, where they are lawfully produced and
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber,                  marketed, a national rule prohibiting the marketing of a cheese
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 without rind under the designation ‘Emmenthal’ in that Member
on 30 November 2000, in which it:                                           State.
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to      (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
      comply with Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council
      Directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of
      adaptation to a competitive environment in telecommunications,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                                                                            in Case C-477/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Eurostock Meat
                                                                            Marketing Ltd v Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Agriculture — Animal health — National emergency
                         of 5 December 2000                                 measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy —
                                                                                Specified risk material)
in Case C-448/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunal de Police, Belley, France): criminal                                               (2001/C 79/09)
         proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restric-                                  (Language of the case: English)
tion — Purely internal situation — Manufacture and
         marketing of Emmenthal cheese without rind)
                                                                            In Case C-477/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
                            (2001/C 79/08)
                                                                            in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd and Department of Agriculture
                      (Language of the case: French)                        for Northern Ireland — on the interpretation of Article 9
                                                                            of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
                                                                            concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395,
                    in the European Court Reports)                          p. 13), Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on
                                                                            the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as
In Case C-448/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 1997
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                     L 216, p. 95) and Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
Police (Local Criminal Court), Belley, (France) for a preliminary           amendment, Article 30 EC) — the Court, composed of:
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
Jean-Pierre Guimont — on the interpretation of Articles 3(a)                M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
and 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                      D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Articles 3(1)(a) EC and 28 EC et seq.) — the Court, composed                R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
teur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),                 a judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-323/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Polynt SpA v New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Sitre Srl, European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Article 57(f) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Identification — Equivalent level of concern — Cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride, cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Polynt SpA v New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Sitre Srl, European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission
   (Case C-323/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 57(f) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Identification - Equivalent level of concern - Cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride, cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride))
   (2017/C 151/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: New Japan Chemical (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), Sitre Srl (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Polynt SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders New Japan Chemical and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-415/12: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Xeda International and Others v Commission

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Xeda International and Others v Commission
   (Case T-415/12) (1)

   2014/C 78/38
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-286/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  4 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg (Protection of the European Communities' financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Repayment of Community aid — Retroactive application of less severe administrative penalties)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-286/05) (1)

   (Protection of the European Communities' financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Repayment of Community aid - Retroactive application of less severe administrative penalties)
   (2006/C 165/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Reinhold Haug

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Arts. 2(2), second sentence, 4(1) and (4) and 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) and Article 31(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11) — Retroactive application of a less strict provision — Meaning of ‘administrative measure’ and ‘administrative penalty’ — Repayment of area aid unduly received
   Operative part of the judgment
   The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests does not apply if, a difference of more than 20 % of the determined area within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes having been found, full repayment of the Community aid initially granted, together with interest, is sought whereas the economic operator concerned contends that the amount of the aid to be repaid might be lower under Article 31(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Case C-571/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 November 2011 — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan and Ioan Dan Câmpan

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/35

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 November 2011 — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan and Ioan Dan Câmpan
      (Case C-571/11)
      (2012/C 25/68)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Comercial Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

         Defendants: Andreia Câmpan and Ioan Dan Câmpan

         Question referred

      Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language,
      and
      given that, under Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of ‘the total cost of the credit to the consumer’, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage,
      can the concepts of ‘subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’, as used in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that a fee referred to by the parties as a ‘risk commission’, which is provided for under a credit agreement secured by a mortgage and which is calculated on the basis of ‘0.22% of the credit balance’ and payable monthly, throughout the entire period of validity of the credit agreement, on pre-determined repayment dates falls within the ‘subject-matter’ and/or ‘price’ of the credit agreement secured by mortgage?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29)

         (2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66)


title: Case T-201/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007 — Microsoft v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Client PC operating systems — Work group server operating systems — Streaming media players — Decision finding infringements of Article 82 EC — Refusal of the dominant undertaking to supply and authorise the use of interoperability information — Supply by the dominant undertaking of its client PC operating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of its media player — Remedies — Appointment of an independent monitoring trustee — Fine — Determination of the amount — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007 — Microsoft v Commission
   (Case T-201/04) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Client PC operating systems - Work group server operating systems - Streaming media players - Decision finding infringements of Article 82 EC - Refusal of the dominant undertaking to supply and authorise the use of interoperability information - Supply by the dominant undertaking of its client PC operating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of its media player - Remedies - Appointment of an independent monitoring trustee - Fine - Determination of the amount - Proportionality)
   (2007/C 269/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and I. Forrester QC)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: R. Wainwright, F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and A. Whelan, Agents, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and A. Whelan)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. (Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, United States) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, and B. Kilpatrick, Solicitor); DMDsecure.com BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); MPS Broadband AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Pace Micro Technology plc (Shipley, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom); Quantel Ltd (Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom); Tandberg Television Ltd (Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, lawyer); Association for Competitive Technology, Inc. (Washington, DC, United States) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker, lawyers, and K. Bacon, Barrister); TeamSystem SpA (Pesaro, Italy); Mamut ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer); and Exor AB (Uppsala, Sweden) (represented by: S. Martínez Lage, H. Brokelmann and R. Allendesalazar Corcho, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Software & Information Industry Association (Washington, DC) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, C. Simpson and T. Vinje, Solicitors, and D. Paemen, N. Dodoo and M. Dolmans, lawyers); Free Software Foundation Europe eV (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Piana, lawyer); Audiobanner.com (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: L. Alvizar Ceballos, lawyer); and European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Paemen, N. Dodoo and M. Dolmans, lawyers, and J. Flynn QC)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corp. (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft) (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 23) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 7 of Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corp. (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft), in so far as:

                           —

                           it orders Microsoft to submit a proposal for the establishment of a mechanism which is to include a monitoring trustee with the power to have access, independently of the Commission, to Microsoft's assistance, information, documents, premises and employees and to the source code of the relevant Microsoft products;

                           —

                           it requires that the proposal for the establishment of that mechanism provide that all the costs associated with the appointment of the monitoring trustee, including his remuneration, be borne by Microsoft; and

                           —

                           it reserves to the Commission the right to impose by way of decision a mechanism such as that referred to in the first and second indents above;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders Microsoft to bear 80 % of its own costs and to pay 80 % of the Commission's costs, with the exception of the costs incurred by the Commission in connection with the intervention of The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc., Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., TeamSystem SpA, Mamut ASA, DMDsecure.com BV, MPS Broadband AB, Pace Micro Technology plc, Quantel Ltd, Tandberg Television Ltd and Exor AB;

               4.

               Orders Microsoft to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission's costs relating to the interim measures proceedings in Case T-201/04 R, with the exception of the costs incurred by the Commission in connection with the intervention of The Computing Technology Industry Association, Association for Competitive Technology, TeamSystem, Mamut, DMDsecure.com, MPS Broadband, Pace Micro Technology, Quantel, Tandberg Television and Exor;

               5.

               Orders Microsoft to pay the costs of Software & Information Industry Association, Free Software Foundation Europe, Audiobanner.com and European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), including those relating to the interim measures proceedings;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs and to pay 20 % of Microsoft's costs, with the exception of the costs incurred by Microsoft in connection with the intervention of Software & Information Industry Association, Free Software Foundation Europe, Audiobanner.com and ECIS;

               7.

               Orders The Computing Technology Industry Association, Association for Competitive Technology, TeamSystem, Mamut, DMDsecure.com, MPS Broadband, Pace Micro Technology, Quantel, Tandberg Television and Exor to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interim measures proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.


title: Case T-485/11: Action brought on 12 September 2011 — Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

         Action brought on 12 September 2011 — Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission
   (Case T-485/11)
   2011/C 331/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in whole or in part Commission Decision of 30 June 2011 amending Decision C(2009) 8682 final 11 November 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), to the extent it was addressed to the applicants;

               —

               In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 1, paragraphs 2), 4), 19) and 21) of Commission Decision of 30 June 2011; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly attributed joint and several liability to the applicants and companies of the Elementis group and wrongly applied the concept of joint and several liability in holding the applicants liable for the share of the fine of the companies pertaining to Elementis group.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly amended the 2009 Decision to the detriment of the applicants (while an action for annulment of the 2009 Decision is pending) in violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly amended the 2009 Decision without the adoption of a new supplementary statement of objections, thereby violating the applicants’ rights of deference and in particular the right to be heard.


title: Case C-73/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 February 2007 — Tietosuojavaltuutettu

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 February 2007 — Tietosuojavaltuutettu
   (Case C-73/07)
   (2007/C 95/34)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Tietosuojavaltuutettu

      Other parties: Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is an operation in which data on the earned income, income from capital and the wealth of natural persons are

                           a)

                           collected from documents in the public domain held by the tax authorities and processed for publication,

                           b)

                           published alphabetically in a printed publication by income bracket and municipality in the form of extensive lists,

                           c)

                           disclosed onward on CD-ROM to be used for commercial purposes, and

                           d)

                           processed for the purposes of a text messaging service whereby mobile phone users can, by indicating an individual's name and home municipality and texting to a given number, receive in reply data on the earned income, income from capital and wealth of the individual indicated, to be regarded as the processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC (1)?

               2.

               Is Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the various operations listed in Question 1(a) to (d) can be regarded as the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes within the meaning of Article 9 of the Directive, having regard to the fact that data on over one million taxpayers has been collected from data which are in the public domain under national legislation on the right of public access? Does the fact that publication of those data is the principal aim of the operation have any bearing on the assessment in this case?

               3.

               Is Article 17 of Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted in conjunction with the principles and purpose of the Directive as precluding the publication of data collected for journalistic purposes and its onward disclosure for commercial purposes?

               4.

               Can Directive 95/46/EC be interpreted as meaning that personal data files containing, solely and in unaltered form, material that has been published in the media fall altogether outside its scope?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


 16 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 77/ 19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          that such promotion was justified by his qualifications and
                                                                      situation, and that this has undeniably caused him to suffer
— annul the definitive staff report for the period from               material and non-material damage .
      1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , dated 6 November 1995 ,
     which was notified to the applicant on 9 November                (') Case T-161 /95 ( OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 , p . 27 ).
      1995 ,
— award the sum of Bfr 250 000, to be increased or
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the material damage                   Removal from the register of Case T-106/92 (')
     suffered by the applicant in consequence of his having
     been denied any chance of promotion,                                                         ( 96/C 77/40 )
— award the sum of Bfr 75 000, to be increased or                                    (Language of the case: French)
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the non-material                By order of 25 January 1996 the President of the Second
     damage suffered by the applicant,                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
— order the Council to pay all of the costs.                          T- 106/92 : Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European Parliament.
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                      (') OJ No C 34 , 6 . 2 . 1993 .
The applicant states that he did not agree with the initial
version of his staff report for 1991 /1993 , and that this
prompted him, after he had taken certain internal steps, to
bring an action before the Court of First Instance ( 1 ). The
defendant then drew up a fresh report covering the same                     Removal from the register of Case T- 1 97/94 ( J )
period . That definitive report is contested by the applicant in                                 ( 96/C 77/41 )
the present case .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations of officials and of the guide to staff              By order of 31 January 1996 the President of the Third
reports, which provide for a periodical report to be drawn            Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
up at least once every two years; he maintains that the first         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
report was communicated to him over 15 months late, and               from the register of Case T-197/94 : Scholler Lebensmittel
the second nearly two years late . In consequence of the              GmbH & Co . KG v. Commission of the European
delay, it was only possible, at meetings of the promotion             Communities .
committee, to assess the applicant on the basis of the report
drawn up in relation to him at the expiry of his probationary         (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
period . In his view, it may reasonably be concluded that, if
the staff report had been drawn up in good time, that would
have greatly ameliorated his professional situation .
The applicant also maintains that the procedure followed                    Removal from the register of Case T-92/95 ( ! )
was irregular, inasmuch as it is apparent from an
examination of the two reports that they were signed by the                                      ( 96/C 77/42 )
first and second assessors before being signed by the
applicant, despite the fact that the guide to staff reports                          (Language of the case: Italian)
provides for the report to be signed by the second assessor
after the official concerned has been given an opportunity of        By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Second
making comments or remarks thereon and, where                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
appropriate, of requesting a discussion or exchange of views          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
with the second assessor.                                            T-92/95 : Tiziano Boggian v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities .
Lastly, the applicant states that those irregularities have
deprived him of any chance of promotion, despite the fact             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case T-96/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/45

         Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)
   (Case T-96/17)
   (2017/C 112/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0049

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1948/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-142/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 — Cessation of the taxable economic activity — Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities — Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible — Taxable amount — Open market value or purchase value — Determination at the time of the transaction — Direct effect of Article 74)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/29

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-142/12) (1)

   (Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 - Cessation of the taxable economic activity - Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities - Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible - Taxable amount - Open market value or purchase value - Determination at the time of the transaction - Direct effect of Article 74)
   2013/C 225/47
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 December 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transactions to be treated as the supply of goods for consideration — Cessation of the taxable economic activity of a taxable person, owing to the fact that, by reason of its removal from the value added tax register, that taxable person is no longer able to charge or to deduct value added tax — Method for determining the taxable amount in relation to the assets existing at the time of that removal

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as also covering the cessation of the taxable economic activity as a result of the removal of the taxable person from the value added tax register.

               2.

               Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which, in the event of the cessation of the taxable economic activity, the taxable amount of the transaction is to be the open market value of the assets in existence at the time of that cessation, unless that value corresponds in practice to the residual value of those goods at that date and account is thus taken of the change in the value of those goods between the date of their acquisition and the date of the cessation of the taxable economic activity.

               3.

               Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 has direct effect.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case C-253/12: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (The Czech social security administration)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (The Czech social security administration)
   (Case C-253/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/115
   Language of the case: Czech
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-388/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves on a pocket) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing two curves on a pocket — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves on a pocket)
   (Case T-388/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing two curves on a pocket - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2010/C 317/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Rizzo and S. González Malabia, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 237/2009-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing two curves on a pocket.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-60/10: Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/57

         Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)
   (Case T-60/10)
   2010/C 100/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jackson International Trading Company Kurt D. Brühl Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: S. Di Natale and H.G. Zeiner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Royal Shakespeare Company (Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2009 in case R 317/2009-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘ROYAL SHAKESPEARE’ for goods and services in classes 32, 33 and 42

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, for services in class 41; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘RSC ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, for services in class 41; non-registered trade mark ‘ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for various services.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and, as a result, declared invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the conditions for the application of the said provision have been met.


title: Case T-230/09: Action brought on 10 June 2009 — BT Pension Scheme Trustees v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/25

         Action brought on 10 June 2009 — BT Pension Scheme Trustees v Commission
   (Case T-230/09)
   2009/C 193/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annulment of Article 1 of the decision to the extent that it refers to the fact that the State aid has unlawfully been put into effect, as well as Article 2, Article 3, first indent, and Article 4 to the extent that it refers to aid recovery, of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This application is brought by the Trustee of the British Telecommunications Pension Scheme (‘BTPS’) — the pension scheme sponsored by British Telecommunications plc (‘BT’) — that is responsible for the administration of the scheme, namely, for the collection, investment of contributions and payment of benefits to retired employees of BT and their dependants, in accordance with the trust deeds governing the BTPS and the general law.
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision, C(2009) 685 final of 11 February 2009 (State aid No C 55/2007 (ex NN 63/2007, CP 106/2006)), insofar as it qualifies the measure concerned — ‘the exemption’ from the payment of levies in respect of the BTPS to the Pension Protection Fund (‘PPF’), ‘as concerns the beneficiary’s pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee’ — as unlawful and incompatible State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and to the extent that it provides that the aid should be recovered from the beneficiary with interest from the date that it was put into effect until the date of its recovery.
   In its first plea, the applicant submits that the decision violated Article 87(1) EC in four respects:
   First, according to the applicant, the condition of selectivity has been violated in that the decision did not clearly determine the correct reference system and its objective and the Commission therefore incorrectly found that the BTPS benefited from a so-called ‘exemption’.
   Second, it is claimed that the condition of economic advantage has been violated in that the Commission could not find that BT benefits from an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC because the Trustee pays reduced levies to the PPF, without having compared BT’s overall situation to that of its competitors who do not suffer from the same structural disadvantage in terms of pension costs as BT.
   Third, it is submitted that the condition on distortion of competition and effect on trade has been breached in that in the absence of any advantage as demonstrated under the second limb, there cannot be any distortion of competition and/or effect on trade.
   Fourth, the applicant contends that the condition of transfer of State resources has been breached in that the decision could not have qualified the transfer of State resources relating to the Crown guarantee as the relevant transfer of State resources for the purposes of qualifying the illegibility of the BTPS to enter the PPF as State aid.
   In its second plea, the applicant claims that the decision violates Article 253 EC in that it fails to state reasons as to the following points:

               —

               the statement of reasons regarding the assessment of the general reference system under its analysis of the existence of a selective advantage is contradictory;

               —

               with regard to analysis of the condition on selectivity, in particular by not carrying out in detail the three step analysis provided for by the relevant case-law;

               —

               the Commission has allegedly insufficiently justified why it considers that the additional liabilities borne by BT upon privatisation are irrelevant for the purpose of considering BT’s overall position on the market in comparison with its competitors;

               —

               the Commission allegedly failed to explain how the transfer of State resources pertaining to the Crown guarantee could constitute the relevant transfer of State resources for several exemptions (under the Pensions Act 2004 provisions) which follow from the existence of Crown guarantees.

         In its third plea, the applicant claims that the decision violated the notion of unlawful aid pursuant to Article 88(3) EC in combination with Articles 1 f) and 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) in that there is no aid to be recovered, either from BT or the BTPS and its Trustee, the alleged aid not having been put into effect, as a result of an escrow agreement.

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


title: Case T-280/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/61

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-280/05)
   (2005/C 217/120)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 794/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B622 250 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)   Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case F-84/07: Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Islamaj v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/33

         Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Islamaj v Commission
   (Case F-84/07)
   (2007/C 235/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Agim Islamaj (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare unlawful Article 2 of the Commission decision on detailed rules governing the promotion procedure for officials paid from research appropriations in the general budget (in both the version of 16 June 2004 and that of 20 July 2005);

               —

               annul the Commission decision to cancel the 38.5 points from the applicant's accrued promotion points which he had accumulated as a member of the temporary staff;

               —

               annul the Commission decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 5 in the 2006 promotion exercise and, in so far as it is necessary, that dismissing his appeal to the Promotion Committee for the purpose of reconstituting his accrued promotion points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who started working at the Commission on 1 May 2000 as a member of the temporary staff and who was posted to the Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy), was appointed an official in that centre with effect from 16 April 2004. On 16 April 2005, he was transferred to DG Trade. By letter of 16 June 2006, he was informed that the points which he had accrued as a member of the temporary staff had been cancelled, pursuant to the first contested decision, because he had effected a transfer to a post coming under the ‘administration’ part of the general budget before a period of two years had expired from his recruitment as a probationary official in respect of a post coming under the ‘research’ part of that budget.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-33/07 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 26.


title: Case C-110/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2010 by Solvay SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 17 December 2009 in Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/16

      Appeal brought on 1 March 2010 by Solvay SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 17 December 2009 in Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission
      (Case C-110/10 P)
      (2010/C 161/22)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P.-A. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis, A. Vallery, avocats)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Join the present action to the appeal brought by the appellant against the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01;

                  —

                  set aside the judgment delivered on 17 December 2009;

                  —

                  therefore, re-examine the action in respect of the points that were annulled and annul the Commission’s decision of 13 December 2000 in its entirety;

                  —

                  cancel the fine of EUR 2.25 million or, failing that, reduce that fine by a very substantial amount in order to compensate the appellant for the serious damage it suffered on account of the extraordinary length of the proceedings;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellant submits three pleas in support of its appeal.
      By way of its first plea, which comprises five parts, the appellant claims infringement of the right to be tried within a reasonable time. Solvay criticises, in particular, that the General Court did not undertake a comprehensive assessment of the duration, including both the administrative and the judicial phase of the proceedings (first part), (ii) did not take into account the duration of proceedings before the General Court (second part), (iii) made sanctions for exceeding a reasonable time subject to proof of concrete infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights even though the two principles are separate and distinct (third part), (iv) found that no such infringement existed in the present case (fourth part), (v) misinterpreted the facts of the case in that the General Court took the view that the appellant waived its right to seek, by way of an alternative plea, a reduction in the fine because the reasonable time was exceeded (fifth part), even though the appellant expressly sought the cancellation or, at least, a reduction of the fine on those grounds.
      By its second plea, which comprises five parts, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed its procedural rights in so far as it required the appellant to show that the documents which the Commission lost could have been useful for its defence (first part). Indeed, it cannot be automatically ruled out, without some sort of provisional examination of the file, that the documents in question might have influenced the Commission’s decision (second and third part). Further, the appellant criticises the General Court for holding, in the judgment under appeal, that the appellant did not show that the documents that disappeared might have been useful for its defence on the grounds that the appellant did not raise a plea before the General Court to contest the existence of the agreement, which it could have done even without access to the file, even though the appellant had submitted that plea before the Commission and the content of the lost documents can no longer be determined by anyone (fourth part). Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for not having shown any interest in the lost documents on the ground that it had already rejected the appellant’s substantive plea as regards the lack of effect on trade between Member States, even though it did not know the content of the lost documents and could not therefore exclude that they might have allowed the appellant to present either additional or even entirely new arguments, both substantive and relating to the amount of the fine or the regularity of the procedure (fifth part).
      By its third and last plea, the appellant claims infringement of its right to be heard following the annulment by the General Court of a first decision imposing a fine on the appellant but prior to the adoption, by the Commission, of the contested decision. Indeed, the judgment under appeal does not respond to its action for annulment and refuses to acknowledge that the Commission is under an obligation to hear the undertaking at issue where an earlier judgment of the General Court finds procedural irregularity which affected the preparatory measures.


title: Case T-315/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2008 — Adomex International v Commission (Action for annulment — Aid granted by the Netherlands authorities in the floriculture sector — Decision not to raise objections — Not individually concerned — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2008 — Adomex International v Commission
   (Case T-315/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Aid granted by the Netherlands authorities in the floriculture sector - Decision not to raise objections - Not individually concerned - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 272/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Adomex International BV (Aalsmeer, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 592 final of 16 March 2005 not to raise objections with regard to aid N 372/2003 concerning the floriculture sector, notified by the Netherlands authorities
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Adomex International BV is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-314/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/29

         Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
   (Case T-314/16)
   (2017/C 063/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         and consequently:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 2 February 2016 refusing access to the documents and the decision of 19 April 2016 upholding that refusal;

               —

               compensate the non-material damage stemming from the wrongful conduct on the part of the European Commission, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 20 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and in particular of Articles 2 and 4 thereof.
   According to the applicant, in order to refuse access to the requested documents, the Commission relied on two exceptions in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, namely, first, the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual and, secondly, the protection of court proceedings. However, the Commission has not showed that the disclosure of those documents would have undermined the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the persons who have been referred to in those documents. In addition, the transfer of the personal data contained in those documents is absolutely necessary in order to understand the accusations made against the applicant. In the absence of that possibility, the applicant would not enjoy equality of arms and would not be in a position to prepare sufficiently a defence. The access to the documents, and to the personal data in them, is by contrast necessary, justified and proportionate to the aim of sound administration, the protection of the rights of the defence and the respect for the applicant’s privacy. The Commission undermines the applicant’s privacy all the more so in so far as it does not process the personal data concerning the applicant fairly.
   In the alternative, the applicant states that the exceptions covered by Article 4 preclude the disclosure of the requested document only if there is no public interest justifying disclosure. It submits that fundamental rights, in particular the rights of the defence, are capable of constituting such a public interest.
   In its decision rejecting the confirmatory application, the Commission restricted itself to providing a purely general statement of reasons since it does not explain how partial access to the documents in question would jeopardise the interest of the protection of personal data and of the privacy of the individuals referred to in them.
   The applicant submits, lastly, that the unlawful acts committed by the Commission likewise constitute unlawful conduct that has caused him actual and certain damage.


               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/1

         2010/C 221/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

      OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010

      OJ C 134, 22.5.2010

      OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Rumpstad ATM B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-201/98)

text:
13.3.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         France, thus imposing significantly higher prices on the
                                                                    French market.
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 15 October 1998
     rejecting M.L.B.'s complaint against Microsoft France
     and Microsoft;
                                                                    Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Rumpstad ATM
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.                            B.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-201/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (1999/C 71/55)
The applicant, a wholesale distributor of computer                                 (Language of the case: French)
software and equipment, had purchased French-language
Microsoft software in Canada at a lower price than in
France and subsequently sold them in France. According              An action against the Commission of the European
to the applicant, Microsoft subsequently attempted to               Communities was brought before the Court of First
prevent the importation of that software from Canada.               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
The applicant therefore submitted a complaint to the                1998 by Rumpstad ATM B.V., having its registered office
Commission,      claiming     that    Microsoft's     attitude      at Oud-Beijerland (Netherlands), represented by Marc van
constituted an infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the            der Woude and Thomas Chellingsworth, of the Brussels
EC Treaty.                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
That complaint was rejected by the contested decision.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the Commission, no infringement of                     Ð order the Commission to pay certain sums by reason
Article 85 of the EC Treaty was established on the ground               of fines wrongly imposed, interest on grounds of delay
that Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation enjoy                   and damages;
legal copyright protection which cannot be affected by
dealings outside the EC. Furthermore, no proof was
provided of any attempt by those two companies to                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
influence resale prices. Finally, there can be no finding of
any infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in the
absence of evidence that the two companies were in a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dominant position or acted abusively.
                                                                    In 1997, following an invitation to tender in respect of
The applicant submits that that decision is clearly                 Community food aid, the applicant concluded two
unfounded in the light of Community law, as well as the             agreements with the Commission for the supply of
facts and evidence in the case, and that it is vitiated by          shovels, machetes and buckets to Danane (Côte d'Ivoire)
insufficient reasoning, since the Commission did not                and Monrovia (Liberia). The two agreements stipulated
specify the manner in which the evidence produced to it             that the tools were to be delivered by 15 December 1997
did not demonstrate the existence of any infringement.              at the latet and provided for deductions to be made from
                                                                    payment in the event of late delivery.
The applicant considers that Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                    In the event, the Commission made considerable
prohibits any agreement or practice intended directly or
                                                                    deductions from the final payment on the ground that the
indirectly to fix purchase or selling prices or other
                                                                    supplies were subject to at times lengthy delays.
conditions of the transaction, or to seal off the market. In
its assertion, Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation
infringed that article by attempting to influence selling
                                                                    The applicant submits that the deductions (fines) provided
prices.
                                                                    for by the above agreements are contrary to the provisions
                                                                    of Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for
Furthermore, those two companies abused their dominant              the mobilisation in the Community of products to be
position on the market by prohibiting the importation into          supplied as Community food aid (1), as interpreted by the
France of Canadian products similar to those marketed in            case-law and that they must, therefore, be considered
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
invalid. In the alternative, it argues that most of the delays       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were either caused by the Commission, or cases of force
majeure, so that, even if the clauses are considered valid,
                                                                     The applicant states that the contested decision removing
the amount of the deductions made by the Commission
                                                                     him from his post is based on the complaint that he took
should be reduced.
                                                                     part in internal competition COM/B/18/96 with prior
                                                                     knowledge of the subject-matter of some of the tests and
                                                                     without informing the selection board in advance that he
The applicant also seeks an order that the Commission
                                                                     possessed that knowledge. He accepts that complaint, but
pay it interest in respect of delay, since the final payment
                                                                     maintains that the contested decision disregarded the
for the supplies was not made within the period prescribed
                                                                     reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which
in the agreements.
                                                                     proposed merely the temporary suspension, for a period of
                                                                     two years, of his entitlement to advancement to a higher
                                                                     step.
Finally, it submits that when the agreements were put into
effect, the Commission questioned the Community origin
of some of the tools and halted their manufacture at the             The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
time, which caused it to incur considerable additional               of his application:
expenditure.      The    applicant     considers    that   the
Commission's action constitutes a breach of contract
                                                                     Ð Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
entitling it to damages.
                                                                         reasons, as regards, in particular, the reasons for
                                                                         which a more severe penalty was imposed, as well as
(1) OJ L 204, 25.7.1987, p. 1.                                           the failure to mention any possible mitigating factors.
                                                                     Ð Manifest error of assessment giving rise to a breach
                                                                         of the principles of proportionality and non-
                                                                         discrimination.
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Yannis Tzikis                  Ð Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    interests of officials.
                       (Case T-203/98)
                                                                     Ð Infringement of procedural requirements and of the
                        (1999/C 71/56)
                                                                         rights of the defence, inasmuch as the appointing
                                                                         authority did not even carry out an investigation or
                                                                         make any detailed and impartial inquiries.
                (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 18 December
1998 by Yannis Tzikis, residing at Boortmeerbeek                     Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
(Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and                   Others against the Commission of the European
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service                                   Communities
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                                (Case T-205/98)
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 71/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority               An action against the Commission of the European
    on 27 October 1998, by which it removed the                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
    applicant from his post with effect from 1 November              Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
    1998;                                                            1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
                                                                     AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La
                                                                     Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented
Ð order the Commission to pay damages by way of                      by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot
    compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result            (France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    of the illegality of the decision of the appointing              Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
    authority of 27 October 1998, those damages being
    provisionally quantified in the sum of 1 euro;
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.


title: Case C-504/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2016 — Deister Holding AG, as full legal successor to Traxx Investments N.V. v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2016 — Deister Holding AG, as full legal successor to Traxx Investments N.V. v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-504/16)
   (2016/C 475/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deister Holding AG, as full legal successor to Traxx Investments N.V.

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU) preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from investment income tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is resident within the country,
               to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and

                           (1)

                           there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

                           (2)

                           the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

                           (3)

                           the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,

                     whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from investment income tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

               2.

               Does Article 5(1) in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC (1) preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from investment income tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is resident within the country,
               to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they directly earned the income, and

                           (1)

                           there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

                           (2)

                           the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

                           (3)

                           the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,

                     whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from investment income tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-86/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/33)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 7 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-86/05: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-203/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/29

         Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission
   (Case T-203/16)
   (2016/C 232/37)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark [Danish Regulating Power Association (BRD)] (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU, despite the requirement to act provided for in that article, in the manner in which it initiated the formal State aid investigation procedure: see Article 4(4) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and, contrary to the time limit laid down in Article 9(6), having failed to deliver a decision in State aid Case SA.32699 and SA.32184 on aid to electricity suppliers, which affects the market for regulating power.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU by having initiated the formal State aid procedure only 29 months after the applicant’s complaint and by having failed to deliver a decision in the case even some 31 months after initiating that procedure.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission has received all information that could possibly be necessary to complete the State aid procedure and that a period of 31 months must be deemed to be abundantly sufficient in which to cover the factual and relevant aspects of the case, not least since, prior to the aforementioned 29 months spent on the preliminary examination procedure, the Commission had a total of five years to investigate the case.


title: Action brought on 10 November 1995 by Claudine Petit-Laurent against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-211/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95            LN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 351 /21
    under Article 93 ( 3 ). In any case, the assessment as to              ( b ) annul the decision of the selection board of
    whether or not shipbuilding aid can be exempted as                           15 November 1994 refusing to admit her to
    development aid under Article 4 ( 7 ) of the shipbuilding                    competition COM/T/A/95 ;
    Directive     involves     difficult factual    issues   which
    necessitate the       initiation of the      Article   93    (2)
                                                                       — in the a ternative :
    procedure,
                                                                           ( a ) declare that the decisions by which the Commission
— the Commission has failed to establish that the contested                      adopted its general policy regarding temporary staff
    aid was necessary in order for the shipping line to                          in March 1992 and February 1 994 are in breach of
    contribute to the development of the developing                              the principles referred to in the applicant's pleas,
    country . It is clear that the contrary is the case in that the              and declare them inapplicable to the applicant;
    real owners of the 'Tahiti Nui ' are French companies
    who want to take advantage of generous tax advantages                  ( b ) annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July
    and do not need development aid in order to contribute                       19 95 refusing to admit her to any supplemental
    to the development of the French overseas departments                        competition leading to establishment other than
    and territories but can afford to buy vessels at normal                      competition COM/T/A/95 ,
    market rates,
                                                                       — in the further alternative, order the Commission to pay
— the Commission has failed to analyse the impact of the                   her damages on account of the erroneous and prejudicial
    contested aid on competition in the cruise travel market               nature of the contested decisions; the applicant reserves
    in the Community and between Community shipyards .                     the right to submit later on in the proceedings detailed
    As a question of fact, this aid has had a significant                  calculations of the loss suffered by her,
    adverse impact on the applicants ' operations,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
— the decision has infringed the applicants' rights of
    defence and has failed to take              account of the
    Commission 's duties of impartiality, diligence, care and          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    good administration .
                                                                       The applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff in
                                                                       category A and currently a member, in the same category, of
                                                                       the auxiliary staff of the Commission , contests the decision
                                                                       of the selection board in internal competition COM/T/A/95
                                                                       refusing to admit her to the tests in that competition on the
                                                                       ground that she was not a member of the temporary staff on
                                                                       the final date for submission of applications, as required by
                                                                       the notice of competition .
Action brought on 10 November 1995 by Claudine
Petit-Laurent against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The applicant relies, in support of her claims , on the same
                                                                       pleas and arguments as those invoked in Case T-207/95 .
                          Case T-211 /95 )
                           ( 95/C 351 /39 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             Removal from the register of Case T-526/93 ( )
Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /40 )
1995 by Claudine Petit-Laurent, residing in Brussels
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .                                           (Language of the case: Lnglish)
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           By order of 10 November 1995 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— principally :                                                        from the register of Case T-526/93 : Matthew Fogarty,
                                                                       James Eager, Denis O'Halloran , John Joseph Dillon ,
     ( a ) declare notice of competition COM/T/A/95 illegal            John Joe Lynch, Mary and Martin McMahon , Joseph
           and inapplicable to the applicant;                          Fitzsimmons and Howard McCollum v. Council of the


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1997 in Case T-151/95: Instituto Europeu de Formação Profissional Lda (INEF) v. Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Actions for annulment of measures - Time-limits - Inadmissibility)

text:
 C 387/20                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 12 . 97
 annulment of Commission Decision PT-C(95)543 of                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 12 December 1995 reducing financial assistance — the                                          of 30 September 1997
 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;             in Case T-122/96 : Federazione Nazionale del Commercio
 B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has            Oleario ( Federolio ) v. Commission of the European
given a judgment on 7 November 1997, in which it:                                                  Communities (')
                                                                        (Agriculture — Common organization of the markets —
 1 . dismisses the action;                                             Olive oil — Consumption aid — Regulation (EC)
                                                                       No 887/96 — Action for annulment — Association of
                                                                                traders — Inadmissibility)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the                                             ( 97/C 387/38 )
     costs of the proceedings on the application for interim
     measures .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(<) OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-122/96 : Federazione Nazionale del Commercio
                                                                       Oleario ( Federolio ), established in Rome, represented by
                                                                       Livia Magrone Furlotti, of the Rome Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
                                                                       Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and Paolo
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Ziotti ) — application for partial annulment of
                       of 30 September 1997                            Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 887/96 of 15 May 1996,
                                                                       amending Regulation ( EEC) No 2677/85 laying down
in Case T-151/95 : Instituto Europeu de Formação                       implementing rules in respect of the system of
Profissional Lda ( INEF ) v. Commission of the European                consumption aid for olive oil ( OJ L 119 , 16 . 5 . 1996 , p. 16
                          Communities (')                              and OJ L 254, 25 . 9 . 1985 , p. 5 , respectively ) — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
(European Social Fund — Reduction of financial                         García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
assistance — Actions for annulment of measures — Time
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 September
                     limits — Inadmissibility)                         1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                           ( 97/ C 387/37 )
                                                                       1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case T-151/95 : Instituto Europeu de Formação
                                                                       (') OJ C 370 , 7 . 12 . 1996 .
Profissional Lda ( INEF ), established at Oporto ( Portugal ),
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
initially, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Günter Wilms and,
subsequently, Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson )              Action brought on 2 October 1997 by Associazione
— application for annulment of the Commission 's                      G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina against Commission of the
decision of 2 December 1991 reducing the aid granted by                                       European Communities
the European Social Fund in case 991005 PI in favour of
a vocational training programme operated in Portugal by                                           ( Case T-263/97 )
the applicant — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                                ( 97/C 387/39 )
Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President; A.
Kalogeropoulos and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 30 September 1997, the operative part                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
of which is as follows :
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
1 . the application is dismissed;                                      the European Communities on 2 October 1997 by
                                                                       Associazione G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina, represented by
2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                       Gian Luca Lemmo and Vincenzo Mormile , of the Naples
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Naples at 31 Via del
                                                                       Parco Marguerita .
(') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should annul
                                                                       Commission Decision C(97) 1261 of 15 May 1997.