title: Case C-691/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Les Laboratoires Servier SA v Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Les Laboratoires Servier SA v Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-691/13)
   2014/C 85/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Les Laboratoires Servier SA

      Defendants: Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Question referred

   Does Article 6(2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) require that reasons be stated for decisions as to inclusion or re-inclusion in the list of medicinal products eligible for reimbursement by the health insurance funds which — by limiting, in comparison with the application made, the therapeutic indications giving rise to eligibility for reimbursement, or by making that reimbursement subject to conditions relating to, inter alia, the qualifications of the prescribing doctors, the organisation of care or the follow-up of patients, or in any other way — make the reimbursement by the health insurance funds available to only some of the patients liable to benefit from the medicinal product or only in certain circumstances?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.


title: Case F-121/07: Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/50

         Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-121/07)
   (2007/C 315/96)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decisions of the European Commission of 12 January 2007, 26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007 to the extent that they deny the applicant immediate and comprehensive access to all data and documents in the defendant's possession concerning him. That means, at the present moment and in their current versions, transmission of complete, preferably electronic, copies of the following documents, or, in the alternative, an unrestricted right to examine the abovementioned data and documents and to make copies thereof and notes thereon:

                           —

                           his official personal file, in accordance with the requirements of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, and all additional parallel files — including electronic ones (for example, Sysper 2);

                           —

                           all documents relating to the procedure and decisions concerning the assessments made of him and his promotions since 1 January 2002;

                           —

                           the OLAF files in Case OF/2002/0356;

                           —

                           the files in the proceedings concerning his application of 7 March 2005;

                           —

                           the report drawn up by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) in those proceedings, the IDOC files on which that report was based and all other documents in the possession of IDOC which concern or refer to the complainant;

                           —

                           his medical file, which the Commission must provide in readable form;

                           —

                           all other medical documents, reports and other similar material held by the Commission;

                           —

                           all other files, documents and correspondence in the Commission's possession relating to the facts set out in this case and/or individual procedures, that is to say, including the procedure in the complaints brought before the Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS);

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicant an appropriate amount by way of damages, at least EUR 10 000, for non-material damage and damage to his health caused to him by the decisions the annulment of which is sought in these proceedings, plus interest, from the time at which the action was brought, at a rate of 2 % per year above the main refinancing operations rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the period in question;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant invokes a breach of the duty of care towards officials, a breach of the principle of sound administration, a misuse of the power of assessment or an error in the exercise thereof in the contested decisions. In addition, the decisions also infringe the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25, the seventh paragraph of Article 26 and Article 26a of the Staff Regulations and infringe the applicant's rights under Article 255 EC, Regulation No 1049/2001 and the fundamental right to self-determination in regard to information, taken together with Regulation No 45/2001.


title: Case T-407/04: Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Benedicta Miguelez Herreras against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/50

         Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Benedicta Miguelez Herreras against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-407/04)
   (2004/C 300/97)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by Benedicta Miguelez Herreras, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and Valérie Landes, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award her only one Directorate-General priority point for the 2003 promotion period, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting her informal appeal;

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision to award her a total of 23 points for the 2003 promotion year, the list of merit of Grade C2 officials for the promotion year 2003, the list of officials promoted to Grade C1 in the promotion year 2003 and, in any case, the decision not to enter her name in those lists;

               —

               annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting her complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward in this case are similar to those put forward in Case T-132/04 José Luis Buendía Sierra v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-205/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 86/609/EEC — Protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes — Incomplete transposition)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 44/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     3.    On a proper construction of Article 5 of Regulation No 3223/
                                                                                94, an importer who is not in a position to make a definitive
                                                                                declaration of customs value at the time of customs clearance of
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                          fruit and vegetables coming under the scope of that regulation
                                                                                may give a provisional indication of that value under
                                                                                Article 254 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
                        of 16 January 2003                                        2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                                Community Customs Code only where the value of the
in Case C-422/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              abovementioned products is determined according to the method
from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Capespan                               provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 3223/94.
International plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(Community Customs Code — Fruit and vegetables —
                   Calculation of customs value)
                          (2003/C 44/12)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
In Case C-422/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  in Case C-205/01: Commission of the European Communi-
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom)                               ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Capespan International plc and Commissioners
of Customs & Excise, first, on the interpretation of Articles 28            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
to 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October                  Directive 86/609/EEC — Protection of animals used for
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992                       experimental and other scientific purposes — Incomplete
L 302, p. 1), Articles 141 to 181a of Commission Regulation                                              transposition)
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993                                                    (2003/C 44/13)
L 253, p. 1), and Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables
(OJ 1994 L 337, p. 66), and, secondly, on the validity of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 of 14 July 1998                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
amending Regulation No 3223/94 (OJ 1998 L 198, p. 4), the                                       in the European Court Reports)
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-
teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-               In Case C-205/01, Commission of the European Communities
trar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it                  (Agent: R. Wainwright, assisted by J. Stuyck, avocat) v Kingdom
has ruled:                                                                  of the Netherlands (Agent: H.G. Sevenster): Application for a
                                                                            declaration that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
                                                                            communicate to the Commission, all the laws, regulations and
1.    The customs value of fruit and vegetables coming within               administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose into
      the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of                 national law Articles 8(2), 11, 18(1) and 22(1) of Council
      21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the         Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approxi-
      import arrangements for fruit and vegetables must, in respect of      mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
      the period between 18 March 1997 and 17 July 1998                     the Member States regarding the protection of animals used
      inclusive, be determined in accordance with the rules for             for experimental and other scientific purposes (OJ 1986 L 358,
      calculating entry price provided for in Article 5 of that             p. 1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
      regulation.                                                           obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                            composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
2.    Consideration of the third question referred has disclosed no         D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von
      factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Regu-          Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
      lation (EC) No 1498/98 of 14 July 1998 amending Regu-                 Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003,
      lation No 3223/94.                                                    in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to       Community fishery law precludes a national law such as that in issue
      ensure the correct transposition of Articles 11 and 22(1) of           in the main proceedings, which prohibits, during a certain period, the
      Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on                    landing, on a part of the coastline of the Member State concerned, of
      the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative              scallops fished in the territorial waters of another Member State.
      provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of
      animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      under that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                             in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services —
                        of 16 January 2003                                   Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC —
                                                                             Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeologi-
                                                                             cal digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments
in Case C-265/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State
the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan): Annie Pansard                                                   authorities)
                             and Others (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/15)
(Origin of fishery products — Article 28 EC — National
law periodically prohibiting the landing of certain fishery
         products — Competence of the Member States)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2003/C 44/14)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-388/01, Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Agents: M. Patakia and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
                                                                             U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a declaration
                                                                             that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admis-
                                                                             sion to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs,
                                                                             parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by
In Case C-265/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                   local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan, France, for                nationals and persons resident within the territory of those
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Annie               authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged
Pansard and Others, en présence du Comité Region pêches                      over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages
maritimes, a party to the main proceedings — on the                          tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                     residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 28 EC — the Court of Justice               Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of                  composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the Chamber, and C. Gulmann, F. Macken (Rapporteur),                         R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
N. Colneric, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it ruled that:                         it:


title: Case C-352/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of mdm Versandservice GmbH against Bundesrepublik Deutschland, joined parties: Deutsche Post AG

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of mdm Versandservice GmbH against Bundesrepublik Deutschland, joined parties: Deutsche Post AG
   (Case C-352/04)
   (2004/C 262/32)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Cologne Administrative Court), Germany, of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of mdm Versandservice GmbH against Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), joined parties: Deutsche Post AG, on the following question:
   Is Article 47(2) EC, read together with Article 95 EC, read together with the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) and with Article 7(1) of that directive, in both cases in the version brought into force by Directive 2002/39/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, to be interpreted as meaning that where a universal service provider applies special tariffs to business customers who supply postal items already sorted to the postal network at points in the delivery chain that are not access points, the universal service provider must also apply those tariffs to undertakings who collect postal items from the sender and supply it already sorted to the postal network to the same access point and under the same conditions as business customers, and that the universal service provider is not entitled to refuse to do so on the ground that it is obliged to provide a universal service?

      (1)  OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ L 176, p. 21.


title: Case C-292/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v Alice van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV (Insolvency — Application of the law of the Member State of the opening of proceedings — Reservation of title — Situation of assets)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/22

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v Alice van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV
   (Case C-292/08) (1)

   (Insolvency - Application of the law of the Member State of the opening of proceedings - Reservation of title - Situation of assets)
   2009/C 267/37
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH

      Defendant: Alice van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 4(2)(b), 7(1) and 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Material scope of the regulations — Rights of the ‘State of the opening of proceedings’ — Reservation of title — Location of the goods — Exclusion from the scope of the Brussels I Regulation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 25(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘provided that that Convention is applicable’ imply that, before it can be concluded that the recognition and enforcement provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters are applicable to judgments other than those referred to in Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, it is necessary to determine whether such judgments fall outside the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001.

               2.

               The exception provided for in Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, must be interpreted, account being taken of the provisions of Article 4(2)(b) of the latter regulation, as meaning that it does not apply to an action brought by a seller based on a reservation of title against a purchaser who is insolvent, where the asset covered by the reservation of title is situated in the Member State of the opening of those proceedings at the time of opening of those proceedings against that purchaser.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-78/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January 2001 in the case of Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik (BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard, Société anonyme d'assurances de droit français, v Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Friedrichshafen

text:
21.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/15
Question 3                                                                      (aa) In such a case does the one-year time-limit in the first
                                                                                subparagraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 2454/93 in conjunction with the
Is the financial activity of a company whose annual revenue is                        first sentence of Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention
far higher than that produced by the activity which is its                            or the two-year time-limit in Article 455(2) of that
principal object, according to its statutes, to be regarded as                        regulation in conjunction with the first sentence of
‘incidental’ for the purposes of Article 19(2) of the Sixth                           Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention apply?
Directive?
                                                                                (bb) Does the time-limit for furnishing proof in the case
                                                                                set out in Question 1(a) apply in such a way that the
                                                                                guaranteeing association must submit its allegation
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                under tender of evidence that the irregularity was
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                        actually committed in another Member State within
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).                                        the time-limit and, if that is not done, is precluded
                                                                                from offering that proof?
                                                                          2.(a) Under Articles 454 and 455 of Regulation No 2454/93,
                                                                                is the Member State which finds that an irregularity has
                                                                                been committed in connection with a transport operation
                                                                                under cover of a TIR carnet obliged as against the
                                                                                guaranteeing association, in addition to the notifications
                                                                                under Article 455(1) of that regulation and an enquiry to
                                                                                the customs office of destination, to investigate where the
                                                                                irregularity was actually committed and who is the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-                           customs debtor within the meaning of Article 203(3) of
richtshof by order of that court of 11 January 2001 in the                      Regulation No 2913/92, by requesting another Member
case of Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik                            State for administrative assistance in ascertaining the facts
(BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard,                           (see Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 of 19 May
Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v Federal                       1981 (3))?
Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Frie-
                            drichshafen                                   (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,
                                                                                (aa) If such an investigative obligation is infringed, is the
                          (Case C-78/01)                                              irregularity not deemed under the first subparagraph
                                                                                of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to have
                                                                                been committed in the Member State in which it
                         (2001/C 118/24)                                              was detected?
                                                                                (bb) Must the Member State which has detected the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                irregularity, when claiming against the guaranteeing
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                             association, demonstrate and prove that such an
(Federal Court of Justice) of 11 January 2001, which was                              investigative obligation has been complied with?
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bundesverband Güterkraftver-            (1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
kehr und Logistik (BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière          (2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Tiard, Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v                  (3) OJ L 144, 2.6.1981, p. 1.
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt
Friedrichshafen on the following questions:
1.(a) Does the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph
      of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1), implementing Council                 Appeal brought on 17 February 2001 by Aéroports de
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                      Paris against the judgment delivered on 12 December
      establishing the Community Customs Code (2), for fur-               2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      nishing proof of the actual place of an irregularity apply          of the European Communities in Case T-128/98 between
      also where a Member State, pursuant to Article 454(2)               Aéroports de Paris and the Commission of the European
      and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 454(3)                 Communities, supported by Alpha Flight Services
      of Regulation No 2454/93, brings proceedings against
      the guaranteeing association for the payment of duties,                                       (Case C-82/01 P)
      and the association wishes to prove in those proceedings
      that the place where the irregularity was actually commit-                                    (2001/C 118/25)
      ted is situated in another Member State?
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
(b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:                 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-663/14: Action brought on 10 September 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM (BIG BINGO)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/57

      Action brought on 10 September 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM (BIG BINGO)
      (Case T-663/14)
      (2014/C 395/70)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M.D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2014 in Case R 755/2014-1;

                  —

                  approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 12 120 325‘BIG BINGO’ in Classes 9, 28 and 41;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark applied for: The figurative mark with the word elements ‘BIG BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 12 120 325

         Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the mark applied for

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

         Pleas in law:

                  —

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

                  —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2004 in Case C-119/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC — Discharge of urban waste water into a sensitive area — Lack of a collecting system — Lack of treatment more stringent than the secondary treatment provided for in Article 4 of the Directive)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 24 June 2004
   in Case C-119/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC - Discharge of urban waste water into a sensitive area - Lack of a collecting system - Lack of treatment more stringent than the secondary treatment provided for in Article 4 of the Directive)
   (2004/C 201/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-119/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — application for a declaration that, by not taking the measures necessary for the installation of a collecting system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from that area to treatment more stringent than secondary treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area of the Gulf of Elefsina, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (OJ 1998 L 67, p. 29) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary for the installation of a collecting system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from that area to treatment more stringent than secondary treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area of the Gulf of Elefsina, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.


20150731065617152015/C 270/392802015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150526323211Case T-280/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3210120150526EN0039321321Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)
   (Case T-280/15)2015/C 270/39Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Design at issue: Community design (Tyre treads) — Community design No 4 692-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 in Case R 1286/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

            —

            order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.


title: Case T-150/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/33

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp v Commission
   (Case T-150/07)
   (2007/C 155/61)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp AG (Duisburg and Essen, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators. In the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings on the ground of their participation in cartels relating to the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In the view of the Commission, the undertakings concerned acted in breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               Lack of competence on the Commission's part in the absence of any significance at inter-State level of the local infringement of which the applicant is accused;

               —

               Infringement of the ne bis in idem principle inasmuch as the Commission disregarded the amnesty decisions which the cartel authorities in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands had adopted in the applicant's favour before the present proceedings were brought;

               —

               Absence of the conditions required to establish that the applicant bears joint and several liability with its subsidiaries, inasmuch as it was not itself involved in the offences, its subsidiaries operate on a basis of legal and economic independence, and there is no objective justification for extending liability to the applicant;

               —

               Disproportionate nature of the basic amounts used for calculation of the fine when compared with the de facto market volume in question;

               —

               Disproportionate nature of the deterrent multiplication factor inasmuch as this differed significantly from the treatment accorded to other undertakings of comparable scale in comparable cases decided at the same time;

               —

               Lack of justification for the repeat offender surcharge in the context of the fine calculation by reason of errors of law in regard to the inclusion of previous fines;

               —

               Breach of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) inasmuch as, with regard to the upper fine limit of 10 % of the undertaking's turnover, the fine ought to have been calculated solely on the basis of the turnover posted by the subsidiaries concerned;

               —

               Legally defective application of the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines (2) inasmuch as insufficient account was taken of the added value of the applicant's cooperation in all four countries concerned.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case C-294/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2011 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom N.V.

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2011 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom N.V.
   (Case C-294/11)
   2011/C 252/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Elsacom N.V.

      Question referred

   Is the period of six months from the end of the calendar year in which value added tax became chargeable, being the time allowed for taxable persons not established in the territory of the country to submit an application for refund of that tax — as laid down in the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC (1) of 6 December 1979 — a mandatory time-limit, that is to say, a time-limit non-compliance with which results in forfeiture of the right to a refund?

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11.


title: Case C-126/03: Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 124/8                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.5.2003
listing (including in the first category the listing of priority         2(b) In the event that Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC also
sites) with the result that, in order to ensure the effectiveness              refers to semifinished products, according to which
of the directive, where a Member State identifies a site of                    criteria must it be determined whether milk or a milk
Community importance sustaining priority natural habitat                       product forms an essential part of a product, either in
types or species, there must be considered to be an obligation                 terms of quantity or for characterization of those prod-
to carry out an assessment of plans and projects with a                        ucts, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC?
significant effect on the site even before the Commission draws
up the draft list of sites or adopts the final version of that list
pursuant to Article 21 of the directive and, in fact, with effect        (1 ) OJ L 268 [1992], p. 1.
from the drawing up of the national list?
( 1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                         Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-126/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court                                            (2003/C 124/14)
of 11 March 2003 in the case of (1) Artrada (Freezone)
NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac. Meisner Internationaal
Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
                        van Vee en Vlees                                 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
                         (Case C-124/03)                                 Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, of the Com-
                                                                         mission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                         (2003/C 124/13)                                 service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   —     Declare that, by reason of the fact that the contract for
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                     waste transport concluded by the City of Munich was
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                     awarded without compliance with the notification
Industry) of 11 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on                  requirements laid down in Article 8, in conjunction with
20 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         Articles 15(2) and 16(1), of Directive 92/50 (1), the
(1) Artrada (Freezone) NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac.                       Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst                 obligations under that directive; and
voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (Netherlands Livestock and
Meat Inspectorate) on the following questions:                           —     Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
                                                                               of the proceedings.
1(a) Must the term ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-based
      products’ in Article 2(2) of Directive 92/46/EEC (1) be
      interpreted as meaning that it (also) includes milk con-
      stituents of a product which also contains other non-milk          Pleas in law and main arguments
      constituents and where the milk constituent cannot be
      separated from the non-milk constituents?
                                                                         If — as is the case with the Municipality of the City of Munich
                                                                         — the conditions for the existence of a body governed by
1(b) If the answer to question 1(a) is affirmative: must                 public law are met, there is no need under the directive to
      Article 22 of Directive 92/46/EEC be interpreted as                draw a distinction, in the case of every requested provision of
      meaning that in the case of imports from non-Member                services, as to whether such services are provided in the general
      States that directive is applicable only to the milk               interest and are commercial in nature. It is for that reason
      constituent of a product and thus not to the product of            irrelevant that, in the present case, the City of Munich, in
      which it is a constituent?                                         connection with the provision of a service for a third party,
                                                                         burns waste in its own incineration plant and does not effect
2(a) Does the concept of ‘milk-based products’ in Article 2(4)           the transport to that plant itself but relies on a private
      of Directive 92/46/EEC concern only finished products              undertaking to do so. If a public body tenders successfully for
      or also semifinished products which must undergo further           a contract but is obliged to subcontract out certain services in
      processing before they can be offered for sale to the              order to ensure provision of the overall service, that public
      consumer?                                                          body must apply the procedures set out in Directive 92/50.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 124/9
The obligation to end breaches of the Community law on the                     electricity occasioned, as stated in the reasoning, by the
award of contracts even by terminating contracts that have                     altered legislative framework and to finance general
already been concluded can also not be placed in question by                   revenue charges of the electricity system.
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 (2), which deals with ex post
facto review of potential breaches of the Community law on
tendering. A Treaty infringement can be treated as terminated           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
only once the Member State concerned recognises the illegal                  of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
nature of its action and the breach has been completely                      market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20).
brought to an end.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-130/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 March
  elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA              2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Niels Bertil Rasmussen and Luigi Cimaglia,
                                                                        acting as Agents.
                 (Case C-128/03 and C-129/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 124/15)
                                                                        —      Declare that, by failing to designate Community trade
                                                                               mark courts and tribunals of first and second instance, or
                                                                               in any event by failing to forward to the Commission,
                                                                               within the prescribed period, a list of such courts and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         tribunals indicating their names and territorial jurisdic-
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                        tion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Council of State) of 14 January 2003, received at the Court                   under Article 91 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
Registry on 24 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                     of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino
SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per         —      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA on the following
questions:
(a)   Can an administrative measure which, on the terms and             Pleas in law and main arguments
      for the purposes stated in the reasoning, imposes on
      certain undertakings using the electricity transmission
      network an increased charge for access and use in order           Under the second paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty
      to finance general revenue charges of the electricity             establishing the European Community, regulations are binding
      system be regarded as a State aid for the purposes of             in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Article 87 et seq. EC
                                                                        In the present case, Article 91 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(b)   Must the principles established in Directive 96/92 (1)            imposes an obligation on Member States to designate, in
      concerning the liberalisation of the internal electricity         accordance with their own national legal systems, national
      market and in particular Article 7 and 8 thereof concern-         courts and tribunals of first and second instance with jurisdic-
      ing operation of the electricity transmission network be          tion in matters of infringement and validity of Community
      interpreted as precluding the possibility for the Member          trade marks, and to forward to the Commission a list
      State to adopt measures imposing for a transitional period        of designated Community trade mark courts and tribunals
      on certain undertakings for access to and use of the              indicating their names and territorial jurisdiction. The final
      transmission network an increased charge in order to              date for compliance with these obligations was 15 March
      offset the overvaluation of hydroelectric and geothermal          1997.


title: Case C-589/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Poland)) — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 10 — Old-age benefits — Habitual residence in two different Member States — A survivor’s pension received in one of those States and a retirement pension in the other — Withdrawal of one of those benefits — Recovery of benefits to which it is alleged the recipient was not entitled)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Poland)) — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku
   (Case C-589/10) (1)

   (Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 10 - Old-age benefits - Habitual residence in two different Member States - A survivor’s pension received in one of those States and a retirement pension in the other - Withdrawal of one of those benefits - Recovery of benefits to which it is alleged the recipient was not entitled)
   2013/C 225/05
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny — Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Janina Wencel

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Apelacyjny w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Articles 20(2) TFEU and 21 TFEU, as well as Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Old-age benefits — Waiving of residence clauses — Prohibition on withdrawing a benefit on account of the fact that the recipient resides in a Member State other than that in which the institution responsible for payment is established — European Union citizen who has been resident in two Member States contemporaneously, without opting for a single domicile, and who receives a survivor’s pension in one State and an old-age pension in the other State — National legislation allowing, in such a case, review of the right to the pension and repayment of the pension paid during the last three years

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended most recently by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of the regulation, a person cannot have simultaneously two habitual residences in two different Member States.
   Under the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, in particular Articles 12(2) and 46a, the competent institution of a Member State cannot, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, legitimately withdraw, retroactively, the entitlement to a retirement pension of the person concerned and require that person to repay any pension to which it is alleged he was not entitled on the ground that he receives a survivor’s pension in another Member State in whose territory he has also been resident. However, the amount of the retirement pension paid in the first Member State may be reduced, up to the limit of the amount of the benefits received in the other Member State, by virtue of the application of any national rule precluding the cumulation of benefits.
   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a decision requiring the amount of the retirement pension paid in the first Member State to be reduced, up to the limit of the benefits received in the other Member State, by virtue of the application of any rule precluding the cumulation of benefits, provided that decision does not lead, in respect of the recipient of those benefits, to an unfavourable situation in comparison with that of a person whose situation has no cross-border element and, where such a disadvantage is established, provided that it is justified by objective considerations and is proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by national law, which it falls to the national court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Opinion 1/14: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 September 2015 — Republic of Malta

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/22

         Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 September 2015 — Republic of Malta
   (Opinion 1/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/27)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar and P. Grech, acting as Agents)
   The Opinion 1/14 is removed from the register of the Court.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-145/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — OTIS and Others v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/30

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — OTIS and Others v Commission
   (Case T-145/07)
   (2007/C 155/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Otis SA (Dilbeek, Belgium), Otis GmbH & Co. OHG (Berlin, Germany), Otis BV (Amersfoort, The Netherlands) and Otis Elevator Co. (Farmington, United States) (represented by: A. Winckler, lawyer, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Otis pursuant to the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Otis' legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), on the basis of which the applicants, among other undertakings were held liable for participating in four single, complex and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) EC through the sharing of markets by virtue of agreeing and/or concerting to allocate tenders and contracts for the sale, installation, service and modernisation of elevators and escalators.
   In support of their application, the applicants invoke the following nine pleas in law without contesting the factual findings in the contested decision.
   The Commission misapplied the relevant legal test when holding Otis Elevator Company liable for the conduct of the local entities as Otis Elevator Company did not exercise decisive influence over the day-to-day commercial conduct of these local affiliates and could not have been aware of their infringing conduct.
   The Commission misapplied the fining guidelines (1) and violated the proportionality principle:

               —

               when increasing the fine for deterrence based on the entire group's turnover; and

               —

               when determining the starting amount relating to Germany, as the Commission failed to take into account that the illegal arrangements only concerned escalators and ‘high-value’/high-speed elevators, which only account for a small part of the overall total elevators.

         The Commission violated the leniency notice (2):

               —

               by not granting Otis immunity for the illegal arrangements in Germany, as Otis was the only company to have submitted evidence and information about the full scope and duration of the elevator and escalator arrangements; or

               —

               by not granting partial immunity concerning respectively escalators and elevators in certain periods and by failing to state reason therefore.

         In the alternative, the Commission should have granted a 50 % reduction and, in any event, a reduction significantly greater than 25 %. The applicants allege that the Commission failed to appreciate the extent and significant added value of the evidence Otis provided.
   Furthermore, the Commission violated Otis' legitimate expectations and the proportionality principle:

               —

               by failing to grant the usual reduction of 10 % for not contesting the facts concerning Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg; and

               —

               by failing to grant a reduction for providing clarifying and supplementary information.

         Finally, the Commission misapplied the leniency notice and the fining guidelines when determining the fine relating to Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg.

      (1)  Commission Notice of 14 January 1998 entitled ‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty’ (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


C 118/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-160/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/46)                                                    (2001/C 118/49)
By order of 27 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-160/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                         European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-46/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-128/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/47)                                                    (2001/C 118/50)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-46/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-128/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Ireland.                                    ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)]: Johann Kappel
                                                                   v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-85/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-464/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/48)                                                    (2001/C 118/51)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-85/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-464/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 24 September 1998 in Case C-319/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Skatteministeriet (Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Directive 79/32/EEC - Cigarettes - Smoking tobacco - Concept - Non-contractual liability of a Member State for breach of Community law)

text:
C 340/2               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.11.98
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of             working conditions requires Member States to introduce
intellectual property (OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61) Ð            into their national legal systems such measures as are
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  necessary to ensure judicial protection for workers whose
President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen                employer, after the employment relationship has ended,
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho            refuses to provide references as a reaction to legal
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),           proceedings brought to enforce compliance with the
G. Hirsch, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La               principle of equal treatment within the meaning of that
Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 directive.
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                          (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
It is not contrary to Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty or to
Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
rental right and lending right and on certain rights related
to copyright in the field of intellectual property for the
holder of an exclusive rental right to prohibit copies of a                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
film from being offered for rental in a Member State even
where the offering of those copies for rental has been                                    (Second Chamber)
authorised in the territory of another Member State.                                    of 24 September 1998
                                                                   in Case C-319/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                   the éstre Landsret): Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v.
                                                                                Skatteministeriet (1)
                                                                   (Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco Ð
                                                                   Directive 79/32/EEC Ð Cigarettes Ð Smoking tobacco Ð
                                                                   Concept Ð Non-contractual liability of a Member State
                                                                                for breach of Community law)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    of 22 September 1998                                                    (98/C 340/04)
in Case C-185/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London): Belinda Jane                              (Language of the case: Danish)
            Coote v. Granada Hospitality Ltd (1)
(Council Directive 76/207/EEC Ð Refusal of an employer               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
to provide references for a former employee who was                          published in the European Court Reports)
                          dismissed)
                        (98/C 340/03)                              In Case C-319/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Danish Eastern
                                                                   Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                   Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH and Skatteministeriet Ð
In Case C-185/97: reference to the Court under Article 177         on the interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the
of the EC Treaty from the Employment Appeal Tribunal,              Second Council Directive (79/32/EEC) of 18 December
London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                1978 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
pending before that tribunal between Belinda Jane Coote            consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ L 10 of
and Granada Hospitality Ltd Ð on the interpretation of             16.1.1979, p. 8), and of the principle of a State's non-
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the             contractual liability for damage caused to individuals by a
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for             breach of Community law attributable to that State Ð the
men and women as regards access to employment,                     Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
vocational training and promotion, and working                     President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch
conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,              (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H.               H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),               given a judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),             ruled:
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G.
Hirsch, P. Jann and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                   1. Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the Second Council Directive
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                        (79/32/EEC) of 18 December 1978 on taxes other
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
22 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                        manufactured tobacco, in the version in force in May
                                                                        1990, are to be interpreted as meaning that rolls of
Article 6 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February                 tobacco wrapped in porous cellulose which have to be
1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal                    inserted into cigarette-paper tubes to be smoked must
treatment for men and women as regards access to                        be deemed to be smoking tobacco within the meaning
employment, vocational training and promotion, and                      of Article 4(1) of that directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 340/3
2. A Member State whose authorities, in interpreting                       indicated in a declaration for release into free
     Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the Second Directive 79/32/                 circulation, and where the levying of customs duties
     EEC, erroneously classified a product such as that at                 on products covered by the heading under which those
     issue in this case as a cigarette and did not suspend the             goods ought to have been classified was suspended at
     operation of the decision adopted, is not bound by                    the date on which that declaration was accepted but
     Community law to compensate the manufacturer for                      had been re-established when the error was detected,
     the damage sustained by the latter as a result of that                the customs authorities must not take account of that
     erroneous decision.                                                   suspension in order to recalculate the amount of the
                                                                           customs duties legally due on the date on which the
                                                                           declaration was accepted.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                      2. When the Commission, after consultation with the
                                                                           Customs Code Committee, has delivered a decision
                                                                           addressed to a Member State holding that there was,
                                                                           in a specific case, no justification for granting
                                                                           remission of import duties pursuant to the provisions
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                    1979 on the repayment or remission of import or
                                                                           export duties, and when that decision does not contain
                     of 24 September 1998                                  any legal or factual indication relating to the legal
                                                                           basis for effecting post-clearance recovery of the
in Case C-413/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           import duties concerned under Regulation No 1697/
   the Hùjesteret): Skatteministeriet v. Sportgoods A/S (1)
                                                                           79, a national court may rule on the latter question,
(Customs duty Ð Constitution of a customs debt Ð Post-                     having recourse, if appropriate, to the procedure under
clearance recovery of import duties Ð Remission of                         Article 177 of the EC Treaty.
                         import duties)
                         (98/C 340/05)                                (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                (Language of the case: Danish)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 September 1998
In Case C-413/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hùjesteret (Danish Supreme                  in    Case    C-35/97: Commission of the             European
Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                          Communities v. French Republic (1)
before that court between Skatteministeriet and
Sportgoods A/S Ð on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of
                                                                      (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Article 48 of the EC Treaty
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on
                                                                      Ð Unemployment benefits Ð Award of supplementary
                                                                      retirement pension points Ð Conditions of dismissal Ð
the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export
duties which have not been required of the person liable
                                                                      Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð Frontier
for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
                                                                                workers)
involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ L 197 of                                       (98/C 340/06)
3.8.1979, p. 1) and on the legal effect of a decision
delivered by the Commission following consultation with
the Customs Code Committee Ð the Court (Fifth                                         (Language of the case: French)
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S.                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                       published in the European Court Reports)
judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                      In Case C-35/97: Commission of the European
1. Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79                Communities (Agents: Pieter Jan Kuyper and Pieter van
     of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of                Nuffel) v. French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-
     import duties or export duties which have not been               Bellanger and Claude Chavance) Ð application for a
     required of the person liable for payment on goods               declaration that, by excluding frontier workers residing in
     entered for a customs procedure involving the                    Belgium from qualifying for supplementary retirement
     obligation to pay such duties must be construed as               pension points after being placed in early retirement, the
     meaning that, where a post-clearance inspection has              French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     revealed an error in the tariff classification of goods          Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2005 in Case T-447/04 R Capgemini Nederland BV v Commission of the European Communities (Public contracts for services — Community tendering procedure — Interim proceedings — Prima facie case — Urgency)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/28

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 January 2005
   in Case T-447/04 R Capgemini Nederland BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Public contracts for services - Community tendering procedure - Interim proceedings - Prima facie case - Urgency)
   (2005/C 93/57)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-447/04 R: Capgemini Nederland BV, established in Utrecht (Netherlands), represented by M. Meulenbelt and H. Speyart, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Parpala, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of operation, first, of the Commission's decision to reject the bid submitted by the applicant in response to a call for tenders (JAI-C3-2003-01) for the development and installation of a second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) and for the possible development and installation of a Visa Information System (VIS) in the field of justice and home affairs and of its decision to award the contract to another bidder and, secondly, of the Commission's decision to conclude a contract relating to the SIS II and VIS systems with another bidder — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 31 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-89/09: Action brought on 26 October 2009 — Gagalis v Council

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/45

         Action brought on 26 October 2009 — Gagalis v Council
   (Case F-89/09)
   2009/C 312/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spyridon Gagalis (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the defendant's decision refusing to reimburse the applicant 75 % of all the costs relating to a thermal cure pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 9 December 2008, transmitted to the applicant on 22 December 2008, refusing to reimburse him 75 % of all the costs relating to a thermal cure pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 15 July 2009, transmitted to the applicant on 17 July 2009, rejecting his complaint concerning the reimbursement of 75 % of all the costs relating to a thermal cure pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant and additional amount of EUR 1 551,38 with interest for delayed payment;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-7/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen — Germany) — Staatsanwaltschaft Essen v Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen — Germany) — Staatsanwaltschaft Essen v Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran
   (Case C-7/15) (1)

   (2015/C 213/42)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-571/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2013 — Annegret Weitkämper-Krug v NRW Bank, an institution governed by public-law

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2013 — Annegret Weitkämper-Krug v NRW Bank, an institution governed by public-law
   (Case C-571/13)
   2014/C 24/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Annegret Weitkämper-Krug

      Defendant: NRW Bank, an institution governed by public-law

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that the court other than the court first seised, which has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation 44/2001, must nevertheless stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised, which does not have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation No 44/2001, is definitively established?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


20150731041616782015/C 270/591422014TFPC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150709444411Case F-142/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — De Almeida Pereira v Eurojust (Civil service — Eurojust staff — Member of the temporary staff — Vacancy notice — Candidate selection procedure — Examination of applications by a selection board — Admission to the next stage of the selection procedure — Conditions — Scoring of selection criteria — Required points threshold — Rejection of application — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4410120150709EN0059441441Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — De Almeida Pereira v Eurojust
   (Case F-142/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Eurojust staff — Member of the temporary staff — Vacancy notice — Candidate selection procedure — Examination of applications by a selection board — Admission to the next stage of the selection procedure — Conditions — Scoring of selection criteria — Required points threshold — Rejection of application — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)’2015/C 270/59Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Manuel Antonio De Almeida Pereira (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: E.H. Schulze, lawyer)

      Defendant: Eurojust (represented by: C. Deboyser and J. Carmona-Bermejo, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the second phase of the selection procedure, in the context of his candidature for the post of Advisor to the Office of the President of Eurojust.

      Operative part of the order

            1)

            The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

            2)

            Mr De Almeida Pereira is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Eurojust.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 81, 9/3/2015, p. 30.


title: Case T-376/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark POLO SANTA MARIA — Earlier Benelux figurative mark showing the silhouette of a polo player — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA)
   (Case T-376/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark POLO SANTA MARIA - Earlier Benelux figurative mark showing the silhouette of a polo player - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 194/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Glenton España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: R. Black, R. Guthrie, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 594/2008-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP, and Glenton España, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Glenton España, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-272/09: Order of the General Court of 24 August 2010 — Pineapple Trademarks v OHIM — Dalmau Salmons (KUSTOM)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/30

         Order of the General Court of 24 August 2010 — Pineapple Trademarks v OHIM — Dalmau Salmons (KUSTOM)
   (Case T-272/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 274/45
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-359/10: Order of the General Court of 3 February 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the development plan for the Cabanyal quarter in Valenica (Spain) — Documents originating from a Member State — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice — Environmental information — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Action clearly without legal foundation)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/23

         Order of the General Court of 3 February 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission
   (Case T-359/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the development plan for the Cabanyal quarter in Valenica (Spain) - Documents originating from a Member State - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice - Environmental information - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Action clearly without legal foundation)
   2012/C 89/38
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Ramos Segerra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and P. Costa de Oliveira, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: M. Muño Pérez, thereafter by S. Centeno Huerta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 30 June 2010 refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning the investigation conducted by the Spanish authorities into the file EU-PILOT 724/09/02 ENVI relating to the special plan for the protection and renovation of the Cabanyal quarter of the city of Valencia (Spain).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ecologistas en Acción-CODA is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-225/10: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission
   (Case T-225/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 133/48
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Munõz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-30/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Oftaltech (OFTASIL)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Oftaltech (OFTASIL)
   (Case T-30/08) (1)

   (2008/C 171/97)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.