title: Case F-1/07: Action brought on 3 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/49

         Action brought on 3 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-1/07)
   (2007/C 42/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 17 November 2006 making definitive the list of agents promoted and the measures following therefrom affecting the applicant;

               —

               order all measures necessary to the maintenance of the rights and interests of the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages and interest in the sum of EUR 160 184;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission not to include his name in the list of officials promoted for the 2006 promotion year on the ground that for that year he has not been able to obtain either a staff report — the assessment procedure regarding him was still pending at the date of the contested decision — or promotion points.
   The action is brought principally on the basis of the fact that the Appointing Authority excluded the applicant from the 2006 reporting and assessment exercise, thus causing harmful delay to the progress of his career.
   The applicant takes the view that the contested decision: (i) infringes a number of general principles of Community law, in particular the protection of the rights of the defence, the obligation to state reasons, the prohibition of manifest errors of assessment, the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and equal treatment; (ii) wrongly applies a number of provisions of Community law, inter alia Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and the general implementing provisions which the Commission has adopted for their application.


title: Case F-87/12: Action brought on 10 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/19

         Action brought on 10 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-87/12)
   2012/C 319/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit the extension period of the applicant’s contract

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 in so far as it limits the extension period of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff to 31 March 2012;

               —

               order the defendant to pay one euro provisionally for the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-306/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Door handle) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a door handle — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the prescribed period — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)
   (Case T-306/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a door handle - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the prescribed period - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 277/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 2040/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała and Gamet.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gamet S.A. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case F-100/07: Action brought on 1 October 2007 — Tsirimiagos v Committee of the Regions

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/73

         Action brought on 1 October 2007 — Tsirimiagos v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-100/07)
   (2007/C 269/133)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kyriakos Tsirimiagos (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 21 November 2006 of the Administration Director of the CoR to recover the amounts paid to the applicant in application of the correction coefficient for that part of his remuneration transferred to France from April 2004 to May 2005, in the sum of EUR 2 120,16;

               —

               annul, insofar as is necessary, the decision of 21 June 2007, rejecting his administrative complaint of 21 February 2007 against the decision of 21 November 2006, inasmuch as it confirms the repayment in the sum of EUR 2 038,61;

               —

               order the CoR to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 2 038,61 withheld from his remuneration, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 December 2006, the date of the recovery, until payment in full;

               —

               order the CoR to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-59/07 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 5.


title: Case T-511/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/31

         Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission
   (Case T-511/11)
   2011/C 340/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant asks the Court to annul decision C(2011) 4973 final of the European Commission concerning State aid No C 46/2003 relating to contributions to the Association nationale interprofessionnelle du bétail et des viandes (Interbev). The Commission considered that the voluntary contributions that had become compulsory, levied by Interbev, constituted State aid compatible with the internal market.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, the first of which is essentially identical or similar to that relied on in Case T-478/11 France v Commission.
   The second plea alleges a breach by the Commission of its obligation to conduct the administrative procedure within a reasonable time.


title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-285/97)

text:
27. 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Portuguese
The third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                                                          Republic
requires the Member States to which a directive is                                                    ( Case C-285/97)
addressed to ensure that their legislation is in compliance
with the directive within the prescribed period . When the                                              ( 97/C 295/34 )
period prescribed in Article 10 of Directive 92/73/EEC
expired on 31 December 1993 , France had not adopted
the necessary measures .                                                  An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(>) OJ L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 8 .
                                                                          on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .                   Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
(») OJ L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 13 .                                     of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                 Belgium                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           ( Case C-283/97 )                                     Commission Directive 94/5 1 /EC (') of 7 November
                                                                                1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                             ( 97/C 295/33 )                                     90/21 9/EEC ( 2 ) on the contained use of genetically
                                                                                modified micro-organisms, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
before the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the                              Article 2 of Directive 94/5 1 /EC,
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service,
and O. Couvert-Castera, a national civil servant on                       — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
secondment to that service, acting as Agents, with an                            the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      under those provisions,
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                   — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
       92/73/EEC ( x ) of 22 September 1992 widening the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
       scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2) and 75/31 9/EEC ( 3 )            those in Case C-282/97 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposing
       on the approximation of provisions laid down by                    the Directive expired on 30 April 1995 .
       law, regulation or administrative action relating to
       medicinal products and laying down additional                      (') OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p . 29 .
       provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the                  ( 2 ) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            (■') See page 20 of this Official Journal .
       under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
submitted in Case C-282/97 (4 ).                                                                             Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-286/97
O OJ L 297, 13 . 10.1992, p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965—1966 , p. 20 .                                                    97/C 295/35 )
(') OJ L 147, 9 . 6.1975 , p . 13 .
( 4 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .
                                                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case T-182/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)
   (Case T-182/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 269/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2916/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2004 in Case T-66/02, Idiotiko Institouto Epaggelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epaggelmatikes Scholes AE, Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epaggelmatikis Katarsis and Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epaggelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katarstisis v Commission of the European Communities (Structural Funds — Community support — Operational programme — Request for amendment — Application for a declaration of failure to act — Adoption of a position terminating such failure to act — No need to give judgment)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 March 2004
   in Case T-66/02, Idiotiko Institouto Epaggelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epaggelmatikes Scholes AE, Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epaggelmatikis Katarsis and Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epaggelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katarstisis v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Structural Funds - Community support - Operational programme - Request for amendment - Application for a declaration of failure to act - Adoption of a position terminating such failure to act - No need to give judgment)
   (2004/C 118/86)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case T-66/02, Idiotiko Institouto Epaggelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epaggelmatikes Scholes AE, Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epaggelmatikis Katarsis and Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epaggelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katarstisis, established in Athens, Greece, represented by T. Antoniou and C. Tsiliotis, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou-Durande and L. Flynn) - Application for a declaration of failure to act based on Article 232 EC and seeking a declaration that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161 p.1) and the EC Treaty by failing to remove the unlawful discrimination between private and public professional training bodies in Greece, on the basis that only the latter are financed by the third Community support network and in particular the operational programme Initial Education and Professional Training - the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. legal, President and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 March 2004, in which it

               1

               Finds that there is no need to give judgement in this case;

               2

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C109 of 4.5.2002


title: Case F-44/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Knöll v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/72

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Knöll v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-44/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/134)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Knöll a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 180, of 01.08.09., p 64


               20.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/13

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 14 November 2013 in the case of the Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson
   (Case E-26/13)
   2014/C 81/12
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 14 November 2013 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (The Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 15 November 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and/or Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC that a State (A), which is party to the Agreement, does not give spouses the option of pooling their personal tax credits in connection with the assessment of income tax in circumstances in which both spouses move from State (A) and live in another State (B) in the European Economic Area and one of them receives a pension from State (A) while the other has no income, yet the tax position of the couple would be different if both lived in State (A), including the fact that they would be entitled to pool their personal tax credits?

               2.

               When Question 1 is answered, is it of significance that the Agreement on the European Economic Area does not contain any provision corresponding to Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case T-166/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Infront — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront)
   (Case T-166/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Infront - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 32/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea and subsequently by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 1711/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Infront as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-400/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Bachotet v Commission (Officials — Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on a reserve list of temporary staff — Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal — Second refusal of entry — Action for annulment)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Bachotet v Commission
   (Case T-400/03) (1)

   (Officials - Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on a reserve list of temporary staff - Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal - Second refusal of entry - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 190/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sophie Bachotet (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. serepa-Lacombe and L. Lozano Palacios, agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the refusal by the committee responsible for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 to enter the applicant's name on the reserve list of temporary staff, following a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (not published in the European Court Reports)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter her name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 27 February 1997 in Case C-177/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato): Ebony Maritime SA and Loten Navigation Co. Ltd v. Prefetto della Provincia di Brindisi and Others (Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - Conduct in international waters - Confiscation of a vessel and its cargo)

text:
No C 108/8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5 . 4. 97
     of the Member States relating to restrictions on the                   prohibits not only the actual entry of commercial
     marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and                  traffic into the territorial sea of the Federal Republic
     preparations (asbestos), the Kingdom of Belgium has                    of Yugoslavia but also conduct occurring in
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 (1 ) of               international waters which gives good reason to
     Directive 91 /659/EEC;                                                 believe that the vessel concerned is on course for that
                                                                            territorial sea for the purposes of commercial traffic.
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       2 . A domestic provision which, in the event of an
0 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            ascertained breach of any of the prohibitions laid
                                                                            down in Article 1 of the Regulation, prescribes
                                                                            confiscation of the cargo carried by one of the means
                                                                            of transport indicated in the second paragraph of
                                                                            Article 10 of the Regulation is compatible with the
                                                                            Regulation, in particular with Article 1 0 thereof.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                     of 27 February 1997
in Case C-177/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Consiglio di Stato): Ebony Maritime SA and Loten
Navigation Co. Ltd v. Prefetto della Provincia di Brindisi
                          and Others ( 1 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —
Conduct in international waters — Confiscation of a                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                      vessel and its cargo)                                                  of 27 February 1997
                          ( 97/C 108/13 )                              in Case C-220/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ): Antonius
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                    van den Boogaard v. Paula Laumen (*)
                                                                       (Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Article 1, second
                                                                       paragraph — Definition of rights in property arising out
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          of a matrimonial relationship — Definition of matters
          published in the European Court Reports)                                         relating to maintenance)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/14)
In Case C- 177/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Consiglio di Stato ( Italy ) for a
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ebony Maritime SA and Loten Navigation
Co. Ltd, and Prefetto della Provincia di Brindisi and                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Others — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) (c) and (d )                   published in the European Court Reports)
and Article 10 of Council Regulation ( EEC) No 990/93 of
26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European                    In Case C-220/95 : reference to the Court under the
Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro) ( OJ No L 102, 28 . 4 .
                                                                       Protocol of 3 June 1971 , on the interpretation by the
1993 , p. 14 ) and of Article 1 ( c ) and ( d ) and Article 10 of      Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
Decision 93/235/ECSC of the representatives of the                     on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
Governments of the Member States meeting within the                    and Commercial Matters, by the Arondissementsrechtbank
                                                                       te Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) for a
Council, of 26 April 1993 , concerning trade between the
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
European Coal and Steel Community and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) ( OJ No               court between Antonius van den Boogaard and Paula
L 102, 28 . 4. 1993 , p. 17) — the Court, composed of:                 Laumen — on the interpretation of the second paragraph
                                                                       of   Article   1   of the      aforementioned  Convention     of
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, Presidents, G. F. Mancini, J. L.
Murray and L. Sevon (Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.                   27 September 1968 , as amended by the Convention of
                                                                       9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                       Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm and M.
                                                                       Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304 , 30. 10. 1978 ,
Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 p. 77) and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
judgment on 27 February 1997, the operative part of                    accession of the Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388, 31 . 12 .
which is as follows :                                                   1982 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                       J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
                                                                       Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann
1 . Article 1 (1 ) (c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC)             ( Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H.
     No 990/93 of 26 April 1993 concerning trade between               von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
     the European Economic Community and the Federal                   given a judgment on 27 February 1997, in which it has
     Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)                    ruled :


title: Joined Cases C-259/10 and C–260/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) and the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group plc (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(f) — Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Mechanised cash bingo — Slot machines — Administrative practice departing from the legislative provisions — ‘Due diligence’ defence)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/9

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) and the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group plc
      (Joined Cases C-259/10 and C–260/10) (1)

      (Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(f) - Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Mechanised cash bingo - Slot machines - Administrative practice departing from the legislative provisions - ‘Due diligence’ defence)
      (2012/C 25/14)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) and the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

         Defendant: The Rank Group PLC

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 13B(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling — Mechanised cash bingo — National legislation providing for a difference in VAT treatment of supplies which are identical from the point of view of the consumer or meet the same needs of consumers — Difference in treatment according to the amount of the stake and the amount of the prize — Breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that a difference in treatment for the purposes of value added tax of two supplies of services which are identical or similar from the point of view of the consumer and meet the same needs of the consumer is sufficient to establish an infringement of that principle. Such an infringement thus does not require in addition that the actual existence of competition between the services in question or distortion of competition because of such difference in treatment be established;

                  2.

                  Where there is a difference in treatment of two games of chance as regards the granting of an exemption from value added tax under Article 13B(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that no account should be taken of the fact that those two games fall into different licensing categories and are subject to different legal regimes relating to control and regulation;

                  3.

                  In order to assess whether, in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, two types of slot machine are similar and require the same treatment for the purposes of value added tax it must be established whether the use of those types of machine is comparable from the point of view of the average consumer and meets the same needs of that consumer, and the matters to be taken into account in that connection are, inter alia, the minimum and maximum permitted stakes and prizes and the chances of winning;

                  4.

                  The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person cannot claim reimbursement of the value added tax paid on certain supplies of services in reliance on a breach of that principle, where the tax authorities of the Member State concerned have, in practice, treated similar services as exempt supplies, although they were not exempt from value added tax under the relevant national legislation;

                  5.

                  The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 and has exempted from value added tax the provision of all facilities for playing games of chance, while excluding from that exemption a category of machines which meet certain criteria, may not contest a claim for reimbursement of VAT based on the breach of that principle by arguing that it responded with due diligence to the development of a new type of machine not meeting those criteria.

         (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-302/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (6000)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/45

         Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (6000)
   (Case T-302/17)
   (2017/C 231/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘6000’ — EU trade mark No 13 112 545

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 656/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-36/91: Imperial Chemical Industries plc v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Concerted practice P Presumption of innocence P Administrative procedure P Rights of the defence P Equality of arms P Access to the file)

text:
No C 208/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   members of the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by
                          of 29 June 1995                                 Victor O. White and Richard J. Coles, Solicitors, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-36/91 : Imperial Chemical Industries pic v.                     Lambert H. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, v. Commission of
         Commission of the European Communities ( l )                     the European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and
(Competition — Concerted practice — Presumption of                        Nicholas Forwood QC ) — application for the annulment of
innocence — Administrative procedure — Rights of the                      Commission Decision 91 /300/EEC of 19 December 1990
       defence — Equality of arms — Access to the file)                   relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty
                             ( 95/C 208/47 )                              ( IV/33 . 133-D : Soda-ash — ICI ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
                                                                          Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),
                                                                          composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and D. P. M.
                 (Language of the case: English)                          Barrington, A. Saggio , H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
                                                                          Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June
In Case T-36/91 : Imperial Chemical Industries pic,                       1995 , in which it:
established in London, represented by David Vaughan QC,
Gerald Barling QC and David Anderson, Barrister,                          1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /300/EEC of
members of the Bar of England and Wales , instructed by                         19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
Victor O. White and Richard J. Coles, Solicitors, with an                      Article 86 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/33 . 133-D : Soda-ash —
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                           ICI);
Lambert H. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and                    2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Nicholas Forwood QC ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of 19 December 1990
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty               (>) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
 ( IV/33 . 133-A: Soda-ash — Solvay, ICI ) ( 2), the Court of             C-) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 40 .
First Instance ( first Chamber sitting in extended
composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
 and D. P. M. Barrington , A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
 Kalogeropoulos, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
 1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of
       19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33 . 133 : Soda-ash —                                       of 6 July 1995
       Solvay, ICI) in so far as it concerns the applicant;                in Joined Cases T-447/93 , T-448/93 and T-449/93 :
                                                                           Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento and
 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                           (State aid — Remedying of a serious disturbance in the
 (') OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .                                         economy of a Member State — Authorization of a general
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 1 .                               scheme — Conditional on notification ofindividual cases —
                                                                           Examination of the Community context in relation to
                                                                                individual cases — Economic assessment)
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/49 )
                                                                                (Languages of the case: English and French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 29 June 1995
  in Case T-37/91 Imperial Chemical Industries pic v.                      In Joined Cases T-447/93 Associazione Italiana Tecnico
          Commission of the European Communities ( l )                     Economica del Cemento , established in Rome, represented
                                                                            by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of the Padua Bar, and Eric
  (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —                            Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
  Administrative procedure — Rights of the defence —                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62
  Equality ofarms — Access to the file — Commission 's Rules               Avenue Guillaume; T-448/93 British Cement Association,
  ofProcedure — Authentication ofa decision adopted by the                 established at Wexham Springs (United Kingdom ), Blue
                    college of Commissioners)                               Circle Industries pic, established in London, Castle Cement
                               ( 95/C 208/48 )                              Ltd , established at Peterborough ( United Kingdom ), and
                                                                           The Rugby Group pic, established at Rugby (United
                                                                            Kingdom ), represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark
                  (Language of the case: English)                           Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
                                                                            instructed by Robert Tudway and Dorcas Rogers,
  In Case T-37/91 : Imperial Chemical Industries pic,                       Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
  established in London, represented by David Vaughan QC,                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 Rue Mathias
  Gerald Barling QC and David Anderson, Barrister,                          Hardt; and T-449/93 Titan Cement Company SA,


title: Case C-105/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of 2 March 2001 in the case of A.T. van der Plas en W.H. Guis

text:
21.4.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 118/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (3) If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative
                                                                              and the second in the negative, must the measures
                                                                              requested in these proceedings be regarded as provisional
In the Commission’s view, the term ‘armed forces or [those                    or protective measures within the meaning of Article 24
responsible for] the maintenance of law and order’, to whose                  of the Brussels Convention?
protective equipment the directive, pursuant to the second
indent of Article 1(4) and Annex I thereof, is not applicable, is
a concept of Community law, and is not to be defined by
reference to the legislation of the Member States. Fire brigades
do not form part of the ‘armed forces or [those responsible
for] the maintenance of law and order’ within the meaning of
the directive, even if, in a Member State, they are under the
control of the Minister of Defence or, as in Germany, that of a         Action brought on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of
Land authority.                                                         the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-107/01)
(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.
                                                                                (2001/C 118/35)
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nederlanden by order of 2 March 2001 in the case of
                 A.T. van der Plas en W.H. Guis                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                         (Case C-105/01)                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending
                                                                              Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of
                         (2001/C 118/34)                                      road haulage operator and road passenger transport
                                                                              operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
                                                                              and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of
European Communities by order of 2 March 2001 by the                          establishment in national and international transport
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Nether-                       operations, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate
lands), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March                   such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T. van der Plas               Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
en W.H. Guis on the following questions:                                      directive; and
(1) On a proper construction of the first part of, and of               —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      paragraph (2) of, Article 16, do the abovementioned
      claims in 1(a) to (e), brought against a director, resident
      in the Netherlands, of a company established in the               Pleas in law and main arguments
      Netherlands which holds the shares in a company
      established in France, in order to obtain his collaboration       The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
      in the calling of a general meeting and to effect certain         of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
      decisions concerning the company established in France,           Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
      relate to what is laid down in the abovementioned                 to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
      provisions of the Convention, on the understanding that           law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and
      the French court must be considered to have exclusive             forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. That period,
      jurisdiction as to those claims?                                  which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 98/76/EC,
                                                                        expired on 1 October 1999 without the Grand Duchy
(2) If the answer to the first question is to be in the                 of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
      affirmative, does the jurisdiction of a court, on the basis       provisions.
      of the first part of, and paragraph (2) of, Article 16 of
      the Brussels Convention, preclude a court of another              (1) OJ 1998 L 227, p. 17.
      contracting state from having jurisdiction on the basis of
      Article 24 of the Brussels Convention to adopt provisional
      or protective measures provided for by law?


title: Case T-233/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Ruiz Molina v EUIPO (Appeal — Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause ending the contract if the staff member’s name is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition — Termination of the contract by application of the termination clause — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of unlimited duration — Res judicata — Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed- term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Ruiz Molina v EUIPO
   (Case T-233/16) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause ending the contract if the staff member’s name is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition - Termination of the contract by application of the termination clause - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of unlimited duration - Res judicata - Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed- term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 269/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: José Luis Ruiz Molina (San Juan de Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Ruiz Molina v OHMI (F 60/15, EU:F:2016:28) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr José Luis Ruiz Molina to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case C-392/12: Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2013 — Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blueshore Management SA

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2013 — Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blueshore Management SA
   (Case C-392/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/119
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-188/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenats Salzburg by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the case of Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno

text:
14.7.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/49
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Where a lessee fills up a leased car in the name and at the
                                                                       expense of the lessor at filling stations, is there a supply of fuel
—     set aside the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by          by the lessor to the lessee and must tax be paid on this supply
      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities          at the place of supply within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of
      (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v European          Directive 77/388/EEC or is the ‘onward supply’ included in the
      Environment Agency;                                              lessor’s supply of a service that is taxable under Article 9 of
                                                                       Directive 77/388/EEC?
—     proceed to adjudicate afresh in the matter, and thus:
      —     annul the decision cancelling internal competition         (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
            EEA/T/99/1, communicated to the appellant by
            letter of 27 September 1999;
      —     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 transfer-
            ring the appellant from the Commission to the
            European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it
            classifies him in grade A5, step 3, with effect from
            1 November 1999;
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
      —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets      icht Stuttgart by order of 4 April 2001 in the case of
            of proceedings.                                            Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany —
                                                                                Kreiswehrersatzamt Schwäbisch Gmünd
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Case C-186/01)
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in                                 (2001/C 200/88)
      finding that the Commission’s threats ‘definitively to
      cease using transfers in future’ for the benefit of the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      European Environment Agency in the event of a refusal            European Communities by order of 4 April 2001 by the
      to cancel internal competition EEA/T/99/1 did not have           Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Administrative Court, Stuttgart),
      the effect of vitiating the way in which the appointing          which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
      authority had exercised its discretion by proceeding to          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Dory v
      cancel the competition in question.                              Federal Republic of Germany Kreiswehrersatzamt (District
                                                                       Recruiting Office) Schwäbisch Gmünd on the following ques-
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in
                                                                       tion, in particular with regard to the interpretation of Article 2
      imposing conditions for appointment as an established
                                                                       of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
      official which are not provided for in the third paragraph
                                                                       tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
      of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations and in failing to
                                                                       as regards access to employment, vocational training and
      verify whether the European Environment Agency had in
                                                                       promotion, and working conditions (1):
      fact reconstituted the appellant’s career as regards both
      the his grade on establishment and his seniority in step.
                                                                       Does German compulsory military service for men only
                                                                       conflict with European law?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of 22 February 2001 in the case of Auto Lease
            Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für Finanzen
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                         (Case C-185/01)                               Verwaltungssenats Salzburg by order of that court of 25
                                                                       April 2001 in the case of Francisco Javier Gonzales
                         (2001/C 200/87)                                                             Moreno
                                                                                (Case C-188/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 22 February 2001 by the
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                                    (2001/C 200/89)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Auto Lease Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Finanzen on the following question (1):                                European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/50               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for              European Communities in case T-193/99 between Wm.
Salzburg) of 25 April 2001 which was received at the Court               Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought before
case of Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno on the following                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
questions:                                                               2001 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                         (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by Virginia Melgar and
1.     Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC            Susanna Laitinen, acting as Agents.
      of 27 July 1976 (1) on the approximation of the laws of
      the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as
      amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 Decem-               The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      ber 1988 (2) and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June
      1993 (3), in particular Article 6(3) thereof, together with        —     annul the judgment;
      Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (4)
      relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations             —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings
      and administrative provisions of the Member States                       before the Court of First Instance and before this Court.
      concerning misleading advertising, in particular Articles 4
      and 7 thereof, preclude national legislation which pro-
      hibits, in connection with the marketing of cosmetic
      products, references to medical opinions, by the use, in           Pleas in law and main arguments
      particular, of the description ‘ophthalmologically tested’?
2.    Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC             The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade
      of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the            Marks and Designs) submits that:
      Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
      by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988                —     The Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting
      and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, in                      Article 7(1)(c) CTMR to require that a term must be
      particular Article 6(3) thereof, and Council Directive                   ‘exclusively descriptive’ if it is to be excluded from
      84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on the approxi-                          registration as a Community trade mark under that
      mation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                  provision and in holding that the term ‘Doublemint’ is
      visions of the Member States concerning misleading                       thus not excluded from registration.
      advertising, in particular Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude
      national legislation which permits the use of references
                                                                         —     The reasoning used to support the reversal of the refusal
      falling within the terms of Question 1 only after prior
                                                                               of the term ‘Doublemint’ is contradictory, founded on an
      authorisation by the competent Federal Minister?
                                                                               artificial analysis, and fails to regard commercial reality
                                                                               and the context in which the mark is to be used, which
                                                                               amounts to a reversible error of law because it constitutes
( 1) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.                                                    a manifest error of appreciation.
( 2) OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 151 p. 32.
( 4) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999, p. 27.
Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by Office for Harmo-
nization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                 Action brought on 4 May 2001 by the Commission of the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities in case T-193/99 (1) between Wm.
Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                (Case C-192/01)
                        (Case C-191/01 P)                                                          (2001/C 200/91)
                         (2001/C 200/90)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice on 4 May 2001 by the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001              of the European Communities, represented by Hans Christian
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              Støvlbæk, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-620/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/36

         Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
   (Case T-620/13)
   2014/C 24/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Marchi Industriale (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri and F. Donati, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid Decision No SME/2013/3747 of the European Chemicals Agency, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.
   The applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging total failure to state reasons, in so far as, notwithstanding the detailed documentary information provided to challenge the calculation criteria used to determine the size of the undertaking, the defendant failed to take any account the arguments put forward.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that data relating to the company Essemar SpA, in which Marchi Industriale has a holding, was incorrectly taken into account.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that, contrary to what is claimed by the defendant, Esseco Group srl is not connected, even indirectly, with the applicant and cannot, in any event, be regarded as a ‘partner enterprise’. While Esseco Group has a 50.0005% holding in the share capital of Essemar, the remainder of the share capital in Essemar, amounting to 49.9995%, is held by the applicant. However, while, on a formal level, Esseco Group holds the majority of the share capital in Essemar, it does not have the majority of voting rights within that company. Therefore, there does not exist between Esseco Group and the applicant the special relationship referred to in Article 3(2) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 214, p. 36).


title: Case C-600/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/11

         Action brought on 21 December 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-600/12)
   2013/C 63/19
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Düsterhaus, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by keeping in operation a malfunctioning and full landfill site (located at Griparaiika in the area of Kalamaki on Zakinthos) which does not fulfil all the relevant conditions and requirements of the environmental legislation of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) on waste and Articles 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 12 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) on the landfill of waste. In addition, by renewing the permit for the operation of the landfill site without complying with the procedure that is laid down by Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article.

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The Greek authorities are tolerating the continued operation of a landfill site that is already overfull and have not taken the necessary measures to ensure the requisite increase in the landfill site’s capacity (or an alternative means of dealing with the problem) until 31 December 2015 (when the renewed Environmental Conditions expire) or until a new landfill site begins operating on Zakinthos.

               —

               The Greek authorities have not taken all the required corrective measures to solve a significant number of problems that have been identified by various inspection reports (25 October 2011, 26 January 2010, 26 October 2009, 11 May 2009, 6 February 2009, 26 August 2008, 13 April 2007, 8 December 2005, 7 January 2005 and 14 December 1999) and tolerate the continued problematic operation of the landfill site in question.

               —

               The Greek authorities have not yet drawn up and approved the required conditioning plan for the Zakinthos landfill site and have not submitted an application for renewal of the waste storage permit including a risk assessment plan.

               —

               This means that they have not complied with the requirements of Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and Articles 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 12 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

               —

               Also, by the Joint Ministerial Decision of 8 June 2011 the Greek authorities extended the duration of the landfill site’s Environmental Conditions (which constitute the basis of the operating permit) until 31 December 2015 without the appropriate assessment of the implications that is required by Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC having been carried out.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-302/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 95/59/EC and 92/79/EEC — Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) — Taxes affecting the consumption of manufactured tobaccos — Minimum reference price for all cigarettes of the same brand — Different rates of tax on dark-tobacco and light-tobacco cigarettes)

text:
C 109/12                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               4.5.2002
1.    Declares that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the                 1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force a tax applicable to
      provision of temporary labour which are established in other                  passengers embarking and disembarking in the ports of Genoa,
      Member States to maintain their registered office or a branch                 Naples and Trieste (Italy) when arriving from or travelling to
      office on Italian territory, and so lodge a guarantee of ITL                  ports in another Member State or a third country, but not in
      700 million with a credit institution having its registered office            the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
      or a branch office on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has             territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC.              under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
                                                                                22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 provide services to maritime transport between Member States
                                                                                and between Member States and third countries;
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)
                            19 February 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-295/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86
— Disembarkation/embarkation tax payable by passengers                                                   27 February 2002
— Tax not applicable to passengers travelling between ports
                           on Italian territory)
                                                                              in Case C-302/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                             (2002/C 109/18)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directives 95/59/EC and 92/79/EEC — Article 95 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) — Taxes
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              affecting the consumption of manufactured tobaccos —
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              Minimum reference price for all cigarettes of the same brand
                                                                              — Different rates of tax on dark-tobacco and light-tobacco
                                                                                cigarettes)
In Case C-295/00, Commission of the European Communities
(agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis): Application for a                                                   (2002/C 109/19)
declaration that, by maintaining in force a tax applicable to
passengers embarking and disembarking in the ports of Genoa,
Naples and Trieste (Italy) when arriving from or travelling to                                      (Language of the case: French)
ports in another Member State or a third country, but not in
the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of                                          in the European Court Reports)
22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport between Member States
and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986
L 378, p. 1), the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and                           In Case C-302/00, Commission of the European Communities
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate Gen-                (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February                G. de Bergues and S. Seam): for a declaration that by
2002, in which it:                                                            maintaining in force:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/13
—     a system imposing a minimum reference price on all                     Luxembourg (agent: J. Faltz): Application for a declaration
      cigarettes, and                                                        that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to notify to
                                                                             the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws,
—     a system imposing different tax rates on dark-tobacco                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to
      and light-tobacco cigarettes, to the disadvantage of the               comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
      latter,                                                                amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
Article 9(1), Article 8(2) and Article 16(5) of Council Directive            ment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the
taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco                   Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
(OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive                      the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
1999/81/EC of 29 July 1999 (OJ 1999 L 211, p. 47), and                       Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992                  Registrar has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in which
on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes (OJ 1992 L 316,                  it:
p. 8), and under the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90              1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force, within the
EC), or alternatively under the second paragraph of Article 95                     prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative
of the EC Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                        97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
and A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Albert, Advocate General;                            on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                         projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
27 February 2002, in which it:                                                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph
                                                                                of Article 3(1) of that directive and under the EC Treaty;
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force
      —     a system imposing a minimum reference price on all               2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            cigarettes sold under the same brand and
      —     a system imposing a different rate of tax for dark- and          (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
            light-tobacco cigarettes, to the detriment of the latter,
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 9(1), Article 8(2) and Article 16(5) of Council Directive
      95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover
      taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as
      amended by Council Directive 1999/81/EC of 29 July 1999,                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992
      on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes and the first
      paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty;                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
2.    The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.                                                    5 March 2002
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-386/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles): Axa Royale Belge SA v
                                                                                Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance SPRL (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (Directive 92/96/EEC — Direct life assurance — Infor-
                                                                                mation for policy-holders)
                          (Third Chamber)
                          19 February 2002                                                              (2002/C 109/21)
in Case C-366/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       Incomplete transposition of Directive 97/11/EC)                                           in the European Court Reports)
                           (2002/C 109/20)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          In Case C-386/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             Axa Royale Belge SA and Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance
                                                                             SPRL, on the interpretation of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of
In Case C-366/00, Commission of the European Communities                     10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
(agents: R. Tricot and P. Panayotopoulos) v Grand Duchy of                   and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance


14.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 200/55
            destination that the accompanying health certificate                 Removal from the register of Case C-286/00 (1)
            include the said declaration?
                                                                                (2001/C 200/100)
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal
    health conditions governing intra-Commuity trade in ovine and         By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
    caprine animals (OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19).                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(2) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning           the register of Case C-286/00: Italian Republic v Commission
    veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the         of the European Communities.
    completion of the internal market (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13).
(3) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
    veterninary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
    munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
    the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224; 18.8.1990,
    p. 29).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-367/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-158/95 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/101)
                         (2001/C 200/98)
                                                                          By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 23 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  the register of Case C-367/00: Commission of the European
the register of Case C-158/95: Federal Republic of Germany v              Communities v French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-428/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case         C-102/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/102)
                         (2001/C 200/99)
By order of 27 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           By order of 4 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-102/01: Italian Republic v Commission              the register of Case C-428/00: (reference for a preliminary
of the European Communities.                                              ruling from Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Merz +
                                                                          Co. GmbH & Co. v AOK-Bundesverband and Others.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case C-168/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 April 2008 — Iaszlo Hadadi (Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 April 2008 — Iaszlo Hadadi (Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)
   (Case C-168/08)
   (2008/C 158/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady)

      Defendant: Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(1)(b) [of Regulation No 2201/2003] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the spouses hold both the nationality of the State of the court seised and the nationality of another Member State of the European Union, the nationality of the State of the court seised must prevail?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is that provision to be interpreted as referring, in a situation where the spouses each hold dual nationality of the same two Member States, to the more dominant of the two nationalities?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, should it therefore be considered that that provision offers the spouses an additional option, allowing those spouses the choice of seising the courts of either of the two States of which they both hold the nationality?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case C-146/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
19.5.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/19
Action brought on 30 March 2001 by the Commission                           activities in controlled areas (1), the Kingdom of Belgium
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
                             Belgium
                                                                      —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-146/01)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2001/C 150/35)                              A Member State’s obligation to take the measures necessary in
                                                                      order to achieve the result prescribed by a directive is a
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before           mandatory obligation. In the present case, the Commission
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March          considers that the Kingdom of Belgium has not carried out a
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   complete transposition of:
represented by L. Ström, acting as Agent, assisted by H. van
der Woude, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.         —     Article 4(2) and Annexes I and II, on account of the
                                                                            absence of any provisions relating to the establishment
                                                                            of a radiological monitoring system;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                     —     Articles 5 and 6, in that the provisions adopted do
                                                                            not take account of outside workers employed by an
—    Declare that, by having failed to adopt, or to inform the              undertaking whose principal place of business is in
     Commission of, within the prescribed period, the laws,                 another Member State, where those workers already hold
     regulations and administrative provisions which are                    a radiological monitoring document.
     necessary in order to comply with the provisions of
     Article 4(2) of, Annexes I and II to and Articles 5 and 6        The period for transposition laid down by Article 8 of the
     of Council Directive 90/641/Euratom of 4 December                directive expired on 31 December 1993.
     1990 on the operational protection of outside workers
     exposed to the risk of ionising radiation during their           (1) OJ L 349 of 13.12.1990, p. 21.


title: Case T-484/10: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/36

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission
   (Case T-484/10) (1)

   2011/C 238/62
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.