title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94: IPK-München GmbH v the Commission of the European Communities (Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project — Interference by the Commission — Delay in carrying out the project — Reduction of assistance)

text:
2.6.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 161/13
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 March 2001                                                           of 21 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-69/96 Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktien-
in Case T-331/94: IPK-München GmbH v the Commission                         gesellschaft and Others v Commission of the European
                of the European Communities (1)                                                      Communities (1)
(Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project —                   (State aid — Aid for investment in equipment in the
Interference by the Commission — Delay in carrying out the                  combined transport sector — Article 93 of the EC Treaty
                project — Reduction of assistance)                          (now Article 88 EC) — Action for annulment — Admissi-
                                                                                bility)
                          (2001/C 161/28)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/29)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH, established in Munich                    In Case T-69/96 Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktienge-
(Germany), represented by H.-J. Prieß, avocat, against the                  sellschaft, established in Hamburg (Germany), Zentralverband
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Grun-                     der Deutschen Seehafenbetriebe eV, established in Hamburg,
wald) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                       and Unternehmensverband Hafen Hamburg eV, established in
decision of 3 August 1994 not to pay the balance of financial               Hamburg, represented by E.A. Undritz and G. Schohe, avocats,
assistance granted to the applicant in connection with a project            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
to create a databank on ecological tourism in Europe — the                  mission of the European Communities (Agents P.F. Nemitz) —
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,             application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions,
President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,         communicated to the Netherlands Government on 25 October
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   and 6 December 1995, concerning planned State aids
6 March 2001, in which it:                                                  Nos 618/95 and 484/95 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                            Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili,
                                                                            President, P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 3 August 1994 not to              P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
      pay the balance of financial assistance granted to the applicant      the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2001, in
      in connection with a project to create a databank on ecological       which it:
      tourism in Europe;
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay all the
      costs incurred by the applicant before the Court of First Instance
      and the Court of Justice.                                             2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Commission.
(1) OJ C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.96.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-283/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Wine production — Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 — description, designation, presentation and protection of the products — Protection of additional traditional terms — Erroneous classification of traditional terms — Languages permitted to be used on labels — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-283/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Wine production - Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 - description, designation, presentation and protection of the products - Protection of additional traditional terms - Erroneous classification of traditional terms - Languages permitted to be used on labels - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2005/C 106/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-283/02 Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli, lawyer) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Alves Vieira, V. Di Bucci and M. Nolin) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2002 C 233 of 28.09.2002.


C 275/54              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
—    Breach of the vacancy notice in that the Commission, in                     Removal from the register of Case T-58/02 (1)
     disregard of the decision made by the selection board,
     erred in its assessment of the applicant’s professional                                       (2003/C 275/91)
     qualifications, which perfectly matched the requirements
     set out in the vacancy notice and qualified him for                                    (Language of the Case: English)
     admission also to a Category B post.
—    Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            By order of 15 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
     the principles of sound administration.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-58/02:
                                                                          Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
       Removal from the register of Case T-33/01 (1)
                        (2003/C 275/90)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                              Removal from the register of Case T-143/03 R (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/92)
By order of 24 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
ordered the removal of the name of Kirch Media GmbH & Co
KgaA from the register of Case T-33/01: Kirch Media GmbH
& Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG v Commission of the                        By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of First
European Communities.                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case T-143/03: Elisabeth Saskia Smit v
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                          Europol.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/23

         Removal from the register of Case C-501/03 (1)

   (2005/C 93/45)

      (Language of the case: Swedish)

   By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-501/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Case C-453/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by decision of that court of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V. against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren

text:
C 61/2                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
1.    In a dispute between an Italian national and a company            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      established under Italian law having its registered office        Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by
      in Italy arising from a contract of employment concluded          judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the
      between them which designates Turin as the place of               case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against
      work, is Munich the place where the employee habitually           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
      carries out his work under the second half-sentence of                  A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy
      Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention where, from the
      outset, the contract of employment is temporarily placed                                  (Case C-451/00)
      on non-active status at the request of the employee and,
      during that period, the employee carries out work, with                                    (2001/C 61/04)
      the consent of the Italian employer, but on the basis of a
      separate contract of employment, for a company estab-
      lished under German law at its registered office in Munich,       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the duration of which the Italian employer assumes            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      the obligation to provide accommodation in Munich or              strativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, of 28 June and
      to bear the costs of such accommodation and to bear the           6 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on 8 December
      costs of two journeys home each year from Munich to               2000, for a the preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda
      the employee’s native country?                                    Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                        interventi nel mereato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for
                                                                        Agricultural Policy on the following questions:
2.    If the first question is answered in the negative, may the
      employee, in a legal dispute with her Italian employer            (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
      arising from the contract of employment, rely, with                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
      reference to the payment of rental costs and travel costs               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
      for the two journeys home each year, on the argument                    (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
      that the court having jurisdiction is that for the place of             meaning that it is possible, in the case of Community
      performance of the obligation in question, pursuant to                  law proceedings and the subsequent compliance of the
      the first half-sentence of Article 5(1) of the Brussels                 Member State to derogate from the time-limits prescribed
      Convention?                                                             for the allocation of quotas and the operation of adjust-
                                                                              ments and levies?
                                                                        If not,
                                                                        (2) Are those provisions of Community law valid, in the light
                                                                              of Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do
                                                                              not provide for derogation from the periods prescribed
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                       for allocation and adjustments in the abovementioned
gericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November                            case of Community law proceedings?
2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros
                               Kolpak
                                                                        (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 is
                          (Case C-438/00)                                   meant (OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12).
                           (2001/C 61/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court) Hamm, Germany, of 15 November
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 Novem-             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher             Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court
Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak on the following question:             of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V.
                                                                               against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren
Is it contrary to Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
                                                                                (Case C-453/00)
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of the other part — Final Act — if a sports                                            (2001/C 61/05)
association applies to a professional sportsman of Slovak
nationality a rule it has adopted under which clubs may play            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in championship and cup matches only a limited number of                European Communities by a decision of the College van
players who come from third countries not belonging to the              Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
European Communities?                                                   and Industry) of 1 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 11 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Kühne Heitz N.V. v Produktschap voor Pluimvee
                                                                        en Eieren on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/3
Under Community law, in particular under the principle of                   Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
Community solidarity contained in Article 10 EC, and in the                 of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
circumstances described in the grounds of this decision (1), is                                           Spain
an administrative body required to reopen a decision which
has become final in order to ensure the full operation of
Community law, as it is to be interpreted in the light of a                                          (Case C-463/00)
subsequent preliminary ruling?
                                                                                (2001/C 61/07)
(1) In this case the appellant exhausted the legal remedies available to
    (although the College did not seek a preliminary ruling under (the      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
    present) Article 234 at the time) and the College gave an               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
    interpretation of European law on a specific point which proved         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    subsequently to differ from the Court’s interpretation in a later       represented by Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes, with an
    judgment.                                                               address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                            Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (2), together
                                                                                with Article 1, of Law 5/1995 (1), and the implementing
                                                                                decrees enacted under Article 4 thereof (Royal Decrees
                                                                                No 3/1996 of 15 January 1996 concerning Repsol, No
                                                                                8/1997 of 10 January 1997 concerning Telefónica de
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello                         España, No 40/1998 of 16 January 1998 concerning
di Milano by order of that court of 25 October 2000 in                            Argentaria, No 562/1998 of 2 April 1998 concerning
the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto Scientifico delle                         Tabacalera and No 929/1998 of 14 May 1998 concerning
Venezie SpA against Duphar International Research BV,                             Endesa), in so far as they implement a system of prior
and Consorzio Produttori Principi Attivi Generici —                               administrative authorisation
                           CPA, intervener
                                                                                —     which is not justified by overriding public interest
                           (Case C-454/00)                                              requirements,
                                                                                —     without laying down objective criteria which are
                            (2001/C 61/06)                                              consistent and have been made public, and
                                                                                —     without complying with the principle of pro-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  portionality,
European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan) of 25 October 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2000, for                       are incompatible with Article 43 EC (ex Article 52) and
a preliminary ruling in the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto                   Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b).
Scientifico delle Venezie SpA, having its registered office in
Padua, Italy, against Duphar International Research BV, having              2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
its registered office in the Netherlands, and Consorzio Produt-
tori Principi Attivi Generici — CPA, intervener, on the
following question:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Must Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 (1) be interpreted as               The abovementioned provisions of Law 5/1995 and its
meaning that the scope of protection of the supplementary                   implementing decrees enable the Spanish authorities to subject
certificate extends only to manufacture of the raw material                 to prior administrative authorisation certain decisions (liqui-
from which is prepared the product which constitutes the                    dation, hiving off, merger, change of the company’s object,
medicinal product covered by the marketing authorisation?                   sale of assets and sale of more than 10 % of the shares) (Article
                                                                            3) taken by certain categories of companies in which the
                                                                            State’s shareholding is in excess of 25 % of the share capital
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/of 18 June 1992 concerning             and thereby results in it effectively controlling the company
    the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for med-         (Article 1), provided that such decisions lead either to the
    icinal products (OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1).                             State’s shareholding being reduced by at least 10 % of the
                                                                            capital so that its holding is less than 50 %, or to its
                                                                            shareholding being reduced by at least 15 % of the capital by
                                                                            any means (Article 2). Those facts have not at any time been
                                                                            disputed by the Spanish Government.


title: Case C-496/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.
   (Case C-496/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/124
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-346/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark MILRAM — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/46

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA
   (Case C-346/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Community word mark MILRAM - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)
   2013/C 225/80
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (represented by: W. Berlit, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent), Lactimilk SA (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, abogado)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch v OHIM — LACTIMILK (MILRAM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (joined cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-157/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 22 March 2002 in the case of Rieser Internationale Transporte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft

text:
13.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
                                                                           Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
                                                                           22 March 2002 in the case of Rieser Internationale
—     declare that by:
                                                                           Transporte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und
                                                                                Schnellstraßen Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft
      (1) not fully transposing into Austrian law by 1 January
            1995, contrary to Article 166 of the Act of
            Accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the
            European Union, Council Directive 89/369/EEC of                                         (Case C-157/02)
            8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from
            new municipal waste incineration plants (1) and
            Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on
                                                                                (2002/C 169/31)
            the reduction of air pollution from existing munici-
            pal waste-incineration plants (2), in so far as it has
            not transposed those directives as required into
            the Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Federal law on waste
            management), the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Austrian
            Trade Code of 1994) and the laws of the federal
            states, or, in any event, not informing the Com-               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            mission of any such transposition, and                         European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
                                                                           Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 22 March 2002,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a
      (2) not correctly or not fully transposing Article 4(1) of           preliminary ruling in the case of Rieser Internationale Trans-
            Directive 89/369/EEC into the Luftreinhaltegesetz              porte GmbH against ASFINAG Autobahnen- und Schnellstraß-
            für Kesselanlagen (Law on control of air pollution             en Finanzierungs-Aktiengesellschaft on the following ques-
            from boiler plants) and the Luftreinhalteverordnung            tions:
            für Kesselanlagen (Decree on control of air pollution
            from boiler plants), the Republic of Austria has
            failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
                                                                           1.1.    Is the effect of the case-law of the Court of Justice on
—     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                      the ‘functional concept of the State’ that, when concluding
                                                                           contracts with road users, the defendant is required to observe
                                                                           the directly effective provisions of Council Directive 93/89/
                                                                           EEC of 25 October 1993(1) on the application by Member
                                                                           States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                           infrastructures and of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European
—     Incomplete transposition of Directives 89/369/EEC and                Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 (2) on the
      89/429/EEC:                                                          charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain
                                                                           infrastructures, such that the defendant cannot charge a higher
                                                                           toll than those provisions allow?
      The Republic of Austria does not dispute that, with the
      exception of the legislative provisions notified to the
      Commission as transposing those directives (the Law and
      Decree on control of air pollution from boiler plants), the          1.2.    If question 1.1 is answered in the affirmative:
      directives have not been transposed into Austrian law
      and, in particular, they have not been transposed into the
      Federal law on management of waste, the Austrian Trade
      Code of 1994, the Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz               1.2.1. Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89 and
      (Law on environmental impact assessments) and the laws               Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62 have direct effect
      of the federal states on waste management.                           according to the case-law of the Court of Justice such that if
                                                                           the Directives have not been transposed, or have been
                                                                           transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they may be relied
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 4(1) of Directive 89/
                                                                           on in calculating a toll that complies with the Directives for
      369/EEC in the Decree on control of air pollution from
                                                                           vehicles with more than three axles used for the carriage of
      boiler plants: that decree does not contain any of the
                                                                           goods on the full itinerary of the Austrian Brenner motorway?
      technical requirements laid down in Article 4(1) of
      Directive 89/369/EEC.
                                                                           1.2.2.     If question 1.2.1 is answered in the affirmative:
(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50.
                                                                           1.2.2.1. How and by reference to what parameters is the
                                                                           authorised toll for a single journey on the full itinerary to be
                                                                           calculated in the individual case?
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
1.2.2.2. Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them        Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries            26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
of that motorway?                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
1.3.      If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative:                                 (Case C-160/02)
1.3.1. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/                                        (2002/C 169/33)
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or,             European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired?         Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
1.3.2. If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
                                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
                                                                          following question:
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed?                                                           Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
                                                                          Council on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32.                                               of their families moving within the Community, as amended
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42.                                               and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827.                                                   2 December 1996 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
                                                                          provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
                                                                          über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
                                                                          selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
                                                                          on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
                                                                          merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
                                                                          constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                  meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the                     coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail                regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
           Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.                     who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
                                                                          of that benefit?
                          (Case C-159/02)
                                                                          (1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
                          (2002/C 169/32)                                 (2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit,                 Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question:              the European Communities against the French Republic
‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the                                     (Case C-161/02)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently                                               (2002/C 169/34)
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
before the English courts?’                                               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 5 June 1998 by AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp companies against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-90/98)

text:
25.7.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/37
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                b) order the Commission to pay the following amounts,
                                                                       which are equivalent to (i) the sums of fine payable by
The applicant is a trade association of private mining                 the Commission to the applicants together with (ii)
undertakings. By the application, made under Article 33                interest on those sums calculated at the official
of the ECSC Treaty, the applicant seeks a declaration that             discount rate of the Banque Nationale de Belgique
the decision of the Commission of 27 April 1998 not to                 plus 1 % of the EMCF rate plus 1,5 % from the date
act on the Supplemental Complaint submitted to it by the               of payment of the fines by the Swedish addressees
applicant is void in so far as it relates to the complaints            until 31 May 1993, in compensation for the
made against the Central Electricity generating Board                  Commission's unlawful refusal to discharge the
(CEGB) and British Coal. The Supplemental Complaint,                   obligations arising as a result of the Wood pulp
dated 15 June 1994, dealt with excessive royalties charged             judgment:
by British Coal and discriminatory pricing operated by the
CEGB in relation to the price paid for coal in the licensed            Ð to AssiDomän Kraft Products AB: (i) ECU 130 000
sector.                                                                    plus (ii) BF 4 573 470.13 or ECU 107 867.02;
The applicant submits that Article 63(1) of the ECSC                   Ð to AB Iggesunds Bruk: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(b) of the ECSC                       1 019 686.33 or ECU 24 117.25;
Treaty, imposes an obligation on the Commission to adopt
a finding in relation to past infringements. Article 66(7)
                                                                       Ð to Korsnäs AB: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
of the ECSC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(d) of
                                                                           1 055 459.43 or ECU 24 893.32;
the ECSC Treaty, likewise imposes an obligation on the
Commission to adopt a finding in relation to past
infringements. The imposition of excessive royalties under             Ð to MoDo Paper AB: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
the licence agreements between British Coal and the                        1 055 459.43 of ECU 24 893.32;
licensed operators falls within the scope of Article 65 of
the ECSC Treaty.                                                       Ð to Södra Cell AB: (i) ECU 80 000 plus (ii) BF
                                                                           2 814 464.79 or ECU 66 380.18;
Furthermore, the Commission has manifestly failed to
fulfil its duty properly to consider the Supplemental                  Ð to Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB: (i) ECU
Complaint, its evidence and its own prior findings, and is                 190 000 plus (ii) BF 6 684 318.72 or ECU
manifestly in breach of Articles 63(1), 66(7) and 65 of the                157 652.15;
ECSC Treaty.
                                                                       Ð to Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA): (i) ECU 130 000
Finally, the Commission was not entitled to adopt a                        plus (ii) BF 4 573 470.13 or ECU 107 867.02;
decision on the basis that the applicant had not supplied
sufficient evidence. On the contrary, the applicant had
consistently indicated its readiness to provide further            c) by way of compensation for the loss caused by the
evidence if the Commission so required.                                Commission's inexcusable delay in not discharging by
                                                                       31 May 1993 the obligations arising as a result of the
                                                                       Wood pulp judgment, order the Commission to pay to
                                                                       the applicants (i) compensatory interest in such
                                                                       amounts as the Court considers just and appropriate
                                                                       compensation for their loss, or (ii) default interest at
Action brought on 5 June 1998 by AssiDomän Kraft                       8 % on the amounts set out under (b) above, in either
Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp companies                  case from 1 June 1993 up until the Court's judgment
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  in this case;
                      (Case T-90/98)
                                                                   d) order the Commission to pay the applicants interest at
                       (98/C 234/70)
                                                                       8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be
                                                                       paid under subparagraphs (b) and (c) above as from
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       the date of the Court's judgment in this case until
                                                                       actual payment;
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1998 by             e) order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish
wood pulp companies, represented by John Pheasant, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.
                                                                   In 1985 numerous undertakings (amongst them the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        applicants), active in the wood pulp business, were the
                                                                   addressees of the Commission decision stating that they
a) annul the Commission decision contained in the letter           had committed infringements of Article 85(1) of the EC
     of 26 March 1998 bearing the reference SG(98)D/               Treaty (the Wood pulp decision' (1)). Fines were imposed,
     2434;                                                         which have been paid by the addressees.
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/38             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Some of the addressees brought actions for annulment                 Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos
of that decision pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         against the European Parliament
On 31 March 1993 the Court of Justice ruled that the                                        (Case T-93/98)
Wood pulp decision' was unlawful (the Wood pulp
judgment' (2)).                                                                              (98/C 234/71)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-227/95 (3) brought by the applicants, the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities annulled a             An action against the European Parliament was brought
refusal by the Commission to repay the fines which are               before the Court of First Instance of the European
the subject-matter of the contested decision in this case.           Communities on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos, residing
                                                                     at Niederanven (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo
In Case T-292/97 (4) the applicants seek (inter alia) a              Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that            service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de
the Commission had failed to act on the obligations                  Longwy.
arising out of the judgment in Case T-227/95.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the present case the applicants submit that the                   Ð annul as unfounded the existing staff report on Mr
contested decision constitutes a repeated failure by the                  Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
Commission to comply with Article 176 of the EC Treaty.                   1 January 1997;
Its refusal to comply with the obligations arising out of
the Wood pulp judgment' was condemned as unlawful by                Ð declare unfounded the decision of the European
the Court of First Instance. It has now repeated its refusal             Parliament not to amend the staff report on Mr
to comply with the obligations arising out of the Wood                  Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
pulp judgment' and has refused to comply with the                        1 January 1997;
judgment of the Court of First Instance as well.
                                                                     Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Article 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty, the
contested decision should be annulled since it is in breach          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the Commission's obligations under Article 176 of the
Treaty and of the judgment in Case T-227/95.                         The applicant, a grade LA 5 official in Directorate-
                                                                     General 7 of the defendant institution, considers that his
                                                                     staff report for the period 1995Ð1997 does not accurately
Pursuant to Article 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, the                reflect the situation concerning his employment. That
Commission should be ordered to pay the applicants                   error of assessment results from a lack of objectivity and
compensation equivalent to the sums paid by them by way              from certain omissions in the precise description of the
of fines in respect of the alleged infringements found at            tasks performed by him.
Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of the Wood pulp decision',
together with interest from the date of payment of the
                                                                     In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement
fines until the date by which the Commission should have
                                                                     of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff
complied with its obligations under the Wood pulp
                                                                     Regulations and breach of the general principles of
judgment', and interest in respect of the loss caused to the
                                                                     equality of treatment and of fairness.
applicants by the Commission's delay in complying with
its obligations under the Wood pulp judgment'.
                                                                     He considers in that regard that the failure to take into
                                                                     account all the tasks and missions carried out by him
(1) Decision 85/202/EEC (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp), OJ L 85 of
    26.3.1985, p. 1.                                                 during the period under consideration resulted in an
(2) Joined Cases C-89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85          incorrect appraisal of his ability, efficiency and conduct,
    [1993] ECR I-1307.                                               thereby distorting the administration's assessment in
(3) AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others v Commission              relation to him. Since he was not assessed in the light of
    [1997] ECR II-1185; appealed (Case C-310/97 P).                  all the factors which should have been taken into
(4) pending.                                                         consideration by the appointing authority, he was not
                                                                     treated on an equal footing with his colleagues and was
                                                                     unfairly treated.


title: Case T-388/05: Action brought on  20 October 2005  — Grünheid v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/26

         Action brought on 20 October 2005 — Grünheid v Commission
   (Case T-388/05)
   (2006/C 10/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sabine Grünheid (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 6 October 2004, notified on 18 November 2004, inasmuch as it makes mention of the applicant's classification at grade A*8, and annul all consecutive and/or related measures;

               —

               annul the corrected decision of 6 July 2005, notified on 12 July 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint, which was registered on 18 February 2005 under reference R/162/05;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant, recruited as an official by the Commission in 2003, disputes her definitive classification at former grade A7, now grade A*8. She takes the view that, in the light of her professional experience acquired before her recruitment, allegedly of more than 12 years, she should have been classified at grade A6, now grade A*10.
   In support of her action, the applicant alleges breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force before 1 May 2004, of the decisions of the Commission concerning the criteria applicable to appointment to a grade, of the administrative guide relating to the classification of new officials, and a manifest error of assessment. In addition, she alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment, since in the past the Commission has classified at the higher grade officials having qualities inferior or equal to those of the applicant. Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello, Milan, First Civil Division, by order of 30 January 1996 in the non-contentious proceedings brought before it by Job Centre Coop. arl. (Case C-55/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133 / 13
federation in order to be able to compete in an international           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Raad van
competition, and which lay down national entry quotas or                State, by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996 in the
similar competitions, are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in            case of VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, represented
particular Articles 59 to 66 and Articles 85 and 86 .                   by the Flemish Government, Intercommunale Maatschappij
                                                                        voor Gas en Eletriciteit van het Westen and Others
                                                                                intervening
                                                                                Case C-56/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/27 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Appello, Milan, First Civil Division, by order of 30 January            European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Raad
1996 in the non-contentious proceedings brought before it               van State ( State Council ) of 14 February 1996 , which was
                      by Job Centre Coop. arl.                          received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for a
                           ( Case C-55/96 )                             preliminary ruling in the case of VT4 Limited v . Vlaamse
                             ( 96/C 133/26 )                            Gemeenschap, represented by the Flemish Government,
                                                                        Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en Elektriciteit van
                                                                        het Westen and Others intervening on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question:
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello,
Milan, First Civil Division, of 30 January 1996, which was              at the time of the contested decision, may regard be had, for
received at the Court Registry on 23 February 1996 , for a              the purposes of interpreting Article 2 of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the non-contentious proceedings                   89/552/EEC of 3 October 1 989 ( 1 ) with regard to its scope
brought before that court by Job Centre Coop , arl on the               ratione personae, to abovementioned draft and proposal of
following questions :                                                   31 May 1995 ( 2 ) of the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities and to the abovementioned text provisionally
 1 . May the provisions of Italian national law contained in            adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European
      Article 11(1 ) of Law No 264 of 29 April 1949 and                 Communities on 20 November 1995 ? If so, what meaning
      Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960 ,                 overlapping the three different texts must be inferred for the
      whereby the business of acting as an intermediary and             purposes of that interpretation ?
      negotiator between those seeking and those offering
      employment is prohibited unless carried on by the public          (M OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p . 23 .
      offices specified in those provisions, be regarded as             ( 2 ) OJ No C 185 , 1995 , p . 4 .
      relating to the exercise of official authority within the
      meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
      55 of the EC Treaty in view of the fact that they are
      treated by Italian law as relating to matters of public
      policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
      workers and the national economy ?                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad
                                                                        van State, by judgment of that court of 22 February 1996
2 . Must those provisions, in view of their general scope,              in the case of H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw,
       be regarded as conflicting with the principles of                                     Natuurbeheer en Visserij
       Community law laid down by Articles 8 , 49, 55 , 59, 60,                                     Case C-57/96
       62 , 66 , 86 and 90 of the said Treaty concerning the right                                   96/C 133 /28
      to work, freedom of economic initiative, freedom of
      movement for workers and others, freedom of supply
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and demand for work and services, free and fair
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Netherlands
      competition between economic agents and the abuse of               Raad van State ( State Council ) of 22 February 1 996 , which
       dominant positions ?
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Meints v. Minister
 3 . In the event that the abovementioned legislation of the
                                                                         van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( Minister for
       Italian State concerning employment agency business is
                                                                         Agriculture, Nature Conservancy and Fisheries ) on the
       in breach of the principles of Community law mentioned
                                                                         following questions :
       in the foregoing question, must the judicial and
       administrative     authorities   of that    Member    State
                                                                         1 , does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 apply to a benefit
       consider themselves bound to apply those principles                     such as that provided for in the Vergoedingsregeling
       directly, allowing public and private bodies and                       voor Uitreding van Werknemers in de Landbouw
       undertakings to act as intermediaries between those                     ( Compensation Rules for Workers Leaving Farming )
       offering and those seeking employment and temporary                     which does not depend on the duration of
       work, subject to compliance with the provisions                         unemployment and forms part of a scheme of measures
       governing employment contracts and mandatory social                     for the structural improvement of the agricultural sector
       security and subject to the controls provided for by                    which emphasizes the promotion of the complete or
       law ?
                                                                               partial cessation of farming and the abandonment of
                                                                               farming by farmers ? What other circumstances may also
                                                                               be relevant ?


title: Case T-717/15: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Drugsrus v EMA

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/32

         Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Drugsrus v EMA
   (Case T-717/15) (1)

   (2016/C 200/46)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


C 278/34             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-403/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-406/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/71)                                                     (98/C 278/74)
By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-403/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-406/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of               of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Germany.                                                         Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-291/95 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-411/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/72)                                                     (98/C 278/75)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 16 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-291/95: Kingdom of           removal from the register of Case C-411/97: Commission
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities.               of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-155/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/73)                                                     (98/C 278/76)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 25 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (reference for
of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.               a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Trento): Leonardo Gulli v. Ente Poste Italiane.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court 4 June 2002 in Case C-99/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige): Kenny Roland Lyckeskog (Questions for a preliminary ruling — Obligation to refer — Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Community system of reliefs from customs duty)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 169/7
Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant:                  ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, and                         against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog, on the interpretation of the
Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, partici-                   third paragraph of Article 234 EC and of Article 45(1) of
pant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on                    Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983
the interpretation of the first and second sentences of the first           setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules                   No 355/94 of 14 February 1994 (OJ 1994 L 46, p. 5), the
for applying the integrated administration and control system               Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), the               F. Macken, N. Colneric, and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                 Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N.
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                    Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 June
has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                 2002, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of the first and second sentences of the first
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration and control system for certain       1.    Where the decisions of a national court or tribunal can be
Community aid schemes, the unit amount of the aid must be reduced                 appealed to the supreme court under conditions such as those
even where the discrepancy between the number of animals declared                 that apply to decisions of the referring court in the present case,
and the number of animals found during checks is not attributable to              that court or tribunal is not under the obligation referred to in
incorrect information given by the applicant but to the fact that the             the third paragraph of Article 234 EC.
necessary conditions for the grant of the premiums are not satisfied
in regard to certain animals.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                  2.    The question whether an importation of goods is non-
                                                                                commercial, within the meaning of Article 45(2)(b) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
                                                                                a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended
                                                                                by Council Regulation (EC) No 355/94 of 14 February 1994,
                                                                                must be examined case by case on the basis of an overall
                                                                                assessment of the circumstances, taking into account the nature
                                                                                of the importation and the quantity of goods involved, the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           frequency with which those goods are imported by the traveller
                                                                                concerned, but also, where appropriate, taking account of that
                                                                                traveller’s lifestyle and habits or of his family environment.
                             4 June 2002
in Case C-99/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige): Kenny Roland                        3.    Article 45 of Regulation No 918/83, as amended by
                             Lyckeskog (1)                                        Regulation No 355/94, precludes national administrative
                                                                                instructions or practices which impose binding quantitative
(Questions for a preliminary ruling — Obligation to refer                         limits on relief from customs duties or which would have
— Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no                           the effect of creating an irrebuttable presumption that the
judicial remedy under national law — Interpretation of                            importation concerned is commercial by reason of the quantity
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Community system of                                  of goods imported.
                     reliefs from customs duty)
                           (2002/C 169/11)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-99/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Hovrätt för Västra Sverige (Sweden) for a preliminary


13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case T-256/13: Action brought on 7 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/17

         Action brought on 7 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-256/13)
   2013/C 178/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato, and by G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the letter of 22 February 2013 from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (Commission ref.: Ares(2013) 237719) concerning ‘Agreement No: ADEC 2007-0266 — Reimbursement — review after appeal’, sent on 25 February 2013 and received by the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani (National Youth Agency) on 6 March 2013 (Agenzia ref.: ANG/2741/AMS), requesting the reimbursement of sums totalling EUR 1 486 485,90, insofar as it seeks reimbursement of EUR 52 036,24 and EUR 183 729,70, together with the letter of 28 February 2013 from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (Commission ref.: Ares(2013) 267064) addressed to the Head of the Youth and National Civilian Service Department, Prime Minister’s Office, communicating the ‘Final evaluation conclusions’ from the ‘2011 Declaration of assurance’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the Commission’s request for reimbursement of various sums totalling EUR 1 486 485,90, a figure which includes sums in the amount of EUR 52 036,24, relating to expenses incurred by the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani for training and assessing EVS (European Voluntary Service) volunteers in connection with the Youth in Action Programme during 2007 which have been considered ineligible, and of EUR 183 729,70, relating to sums not yet recovered by the Agenzia following requests for reimbursement addressed to beneficiaries of that programme from 2000 to 2004 inclusive.
   In support of its action, the Italian Republic relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the combined provisions of Article 3.2.1 and of the last paragraph of Article 5.2.2 of ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001 for the operational implementation of the Youth in Action Programme’ between the European Commission and the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani.

                           —

                           In this regard, the applicant claims that, although the upper limit per capita for each trainee has indeed been exceeded (for organisational reasons and due to time constraints), it does not appear to be either reasonable or in line with the objective pursued by Decision No 1719/2006/EC of developing cooperation within the European Union in the field of youth to request reimbursement of funds which have in fact been used for purposes which are in line with ‘Grant Agreement No 2007 — 0266/001 — 001’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 10.2 of Annex II.1 to Agreement No 2003 — 1805/001 — 001 between the European Commission and the Agenzia nazionale per i Giovani.

                           —

                           In this regard, the applicant claims that the Italian authorities have in practice followed every possible procedure for recovering the sums in question. Furthermore, the Commission has not provided an adequate statement of reasons for its manifestly unequal treatment of two identical situations, namely, the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2000-2004, in respect of which permission to waive recovery has been denied, and the situation relating to the sums to be recovered for the years 2005 and 2006, in respect of which such permission has been granted.


title: Case T-577/11: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v ECDC (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision to the ECDC of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/23

         Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v ECDC
   (Case T-577/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision to the ECDC of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 189/47
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Garipis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: R. Trott, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and E. Bourtzalas)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the ECDC’s decision of 25 August 2011 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure PROC/2001/041 concerning the provision of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens (OJ 2011/S 109-179084).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-315/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Hebberecht v EEAS

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/31

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Hebberecht v EEAS
   (Case T-315/17)
   (2017/C 249/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily:

                           —

                           declare the action admissible and well founded;

                           —

                           annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (Ares (2017) 615970 — 03/02/2017) concerning the refusal of the one-year extension of Ms Hebberecht’s mission as Head of the EU delegation to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;

                           —

                           order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 250 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               in the alternative:

                           —

                           order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 200 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               in the further alternative:

                           —

                           order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 150 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               in the further alternative:

                           —

                           order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               in the further alternative:

                           —

                           order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicant considers that the decision not to extend her mission as Head of Delegation of the European Union (‘EU’) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (‘Ethiopia’) appears to be directly related to a wave of anti-Semitic attacks and discrimination.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the interests of the service, as the applicant’s extension would have been justified on the basis of several factors taking account of the interests of the service, such as:

                           —

                           retaining an efficiently managed and organised delegation, with qualified, motivated staff performing their tasks under the leadership of an experienced head of delegation;

                           —

                           retaining a head of delegation with 28 years of experience in diplomatic, political and economic relations and cooperation in a country which has the status of extraordinary partner of the EU, namely Ethiopia;

                           —

                           contributing to safeguarding the stability of the country and preventing its fragmentation through the outbreak of a civil war;

                           —

                           contributing to halting the current flow of migration and preventing its increase.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since other officials in a position identical to that of the applicant were extended on the basis of grounds which are themselves identical to those put forward by the applicant in her application for a one-year extension. In that context, the applicant also raises non-compliance with positive discrimination measures laid down in the Staff Regulations designed to achieve gender balance, this argument being supported by the fact that the new head of delegation appointed to replace her is a man.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of continuity of service, which is an essential criterion for the extension decision, in that five other individuals are also leaving, including the head of cooperation and the head of the rural development and food safety division, these being two key posts for cooperation and development. The applicant therefore maintains that, in those circumstances, her one-year extension as head of delegation would ensure continuity of service and the training of incoming colleagues.


title: Case T-504/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2013 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIGNITUDE — Earlier national and Community word marks Dignity — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2013 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
   (Case T-504/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DIGNITUDE - Earlier national and Community word marks Dignity - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 79/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Protecsom SAS (Valognes, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1197/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Protecsom SAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2000 in Case T-97/95 (92) II: Sinochem National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European Union (Taxation of costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings — Lawyers' fees — Photocopy expenses)

text:
10.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 163/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 March 2000                                                        of 13 January 2000
in Case T-97/95 (92) II: Sinochem National Chemicals
                                                                         in Case T-1/96 (92): Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European
                                                                         Schulze-Beiering v Council of the European Union and
                             Union (1)
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Taxation of costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the
parties for the purpose of the proceedings — Lawyers’ fees                                      (Taxation of costs)
                     — Photocopy expenses)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/53)
                         (2000/C 163/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-1/96 (92): Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
In Case T-57/95 (92) II: Sinochem National Chemicals Import
                                                                         Schulze-Beiering, residing at Borken (Germany), represented
& Export Corporation, established in Beijing (People’s Republic
                                                                         by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
of China), represented by Jean-Frangois Bellis, of the Brussels
                                                                         Frank Schulze and Klaus Kettner, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against
                                                                         Dupong and Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, v Council of
Council of the European Union (Agents: initially Yves Cretien
                                                                         the European Union (Agents: Anne-Marie Colaert and Marco
and Antonio Tanca, then by Mr Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                         Núñez-Müller) and Commission of the European Communities
Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
                                                                         (Agents: Michael Niejahr and Marco Núñez-Müller) — appli-
Communities, (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural Español
                                                                         cation for taxation of costs pursuant to the judgment of the
SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain), represented by José
                                                                         Court of First Instance of 13 January 1999 in Case
Rivas de Andrés, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
                                                                         T-14/96 Böcker-Lensing and Schulze-Beiering v Council and
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22
                                                                         Commission [1999] ECR-II 1 — the Court of First Instance
Rue Marie Adélaïde — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                         (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura
be paid by the applicant to the defendant, following the
                                                                         Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 1998 in
                                                                         an order on 13 January 2000, the operative part of which is as
Case T-97/95 Sinochemn v Council [1998] ECR II-85 — the
                                                                         follows:
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
J.D. Cooke, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2000, the                  1. The total amount of the costs payable to the Council and the
operative part of which is as follows:                                       Commission by Böcker-Lensing and Schulze-Beiering is fixed in
                                                                             the sum of EUR 4000;
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Sinochem National          2. An enforcement copy of this order is to be supplied to the Council
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation to the Council is fixed at             and the Commission.
DEM 46 230.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 64 of 2.3.1996.
(1) OJ 1995 C 159.


C 55/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-359/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-486/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/34)                                                         (2003/C 55/37)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-359/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-486/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Autogolf Srl v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Flos SpA and Others v
delle Finanze.                                                         Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-487/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/35)                                                         (2003/C 55/38)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-360/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-487/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Union Factor SpA and              ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Petra SpA v Ministero delle
Others v Ministero delle Finanze.                                      Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-485/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-488/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/36)                                                         (2003/C 55/39)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-485/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-488/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Gottinghen SpA and Others         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Supercar Srl v Ministero
v Ministero delle Finanze.                                             delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.