title: Case C-47/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH, Ferho Frankfurt GmbH v Friedrich Leopold Freiherr Spies von Büllesheim (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(1) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict — Articles 18 to 21 — Individual employment contract — Company director’s contract — Termination of the contract — Grounds — Poor performance and wrongful conduct — Action for a declaratory judgment and for damages — Definition of ‘individual contract of employment’)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH, Ferho Frankfurt GmbH v Friedrich Leopold Freiherr Spies von Büllesheim
   (Case C-47/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict - Articles 18 to 21 - Individual employment contract - Company director’s contract - Termination of the contract - Grounds - Poor performance and wrongful conduct - Action for a declaratory judgment and for damages - Definition of ‘individual contract of employment’))
   (2015/C 363/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH, Ferho Frankfurt GmbH

      Defendant: Friedrich Leopold Freiherr Spies von Büllesheim

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The provisions of Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which a company sues a person, who performed the duties of director and manager of that company in order to establish misconduct on the part of that person in the performance of his duties and to obtain redress from him, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 5(1) and (3) of that regulation, provided that that person, in his capacity as director and manager, for a certain period of time performed services for and under the direction of that company in return for which he received remuneration, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.

               2)

               Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by a company against its former manager on the basis of an alleged breach of his obligations under company law comes within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’. In the absence of any derogating stipulation in the articles of association of the company, or in any other document, it is for the referring court to determine the place where the manager in fact, for the most part, carried out his activities in the performance of the contract, provided that the provision of services in that place is not contrary to the parties’ intentions as indicated by what was agreed.

               3)

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which a company is suing its former manager on the basis of allegedly wrongful conduct, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that that action is a matter relating to tort or delict where the conduct complained of may not be considered to be a breach of the manager’s obligations under company law, that being a matter for the referring court to verify. It is for the referring court to identify, on the basis of the facts of the case, the closest linking factor between the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-554/11: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Action for annulment — Financing by the European Union of certain projects in Tunisia, in the framework of the EuropeAid programme — Development of an integrated IT system for the Tunisian judiciary — Recovery by the Commission of debts payable to Tunisia by a third party — Debit note — Acts inseparable from the contract — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissible)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/55

         Order of the General Court of 1 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-554/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Financing by the European Union of certain projects in Tunisia, in the framework of the EuropeAid programme - Development of an integrated IT system for the Tunisian judiciary - Recovery by the Commission of debts payable to Tunisia by a third party - Debit note - Acts inseparable from the contract - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissible)
   2013/C 344/98
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, and N. Theologou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to settle sums allegedly payable and requiring repayment of the sum of EUR 281 270,00 paid in the framework of the implementation of the contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (C&F/2011/D/001101), and also of debit note 3241108036, received by the applicant on 17 August 2011, and of all the Commission’s related decisions

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-383/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd., against the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 61/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  (b) the Council wilfully disregarded the findings of the
                                                                                CVMP.
—     annul the Council Decision of 28 September 2000
      amounting to a refusal to adopt a Maximum Residue                 2.   Breach of principle of proportionality in light of the
      Limit under Regulation No 2377/90, with regard to                      special circumstances of the case, namely:
      recombinant bovine somatotrophin;
                                                                             (a)   that there is no scientific evidence of a risk to human
                                                                                health;
—     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
      Council.                                                               (b) that milk or milk products are imported from third
                                                                                countries where BST is administered to cows; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (c)   any public-health objective has already been more
                                                                                than adequately assured through the adoption of a
                                                                                ban on the marketing of BST.
The applicant is a life sciences company, in the business of
developing products to meet the growing global need for                 3.   Wrongful or disproportionate application of the pre-
food. It has developed a veterinary medicinal product called                 cautionary principle.
sometribove. This product is classified as a recombinant bovine
somatotrophin (‘BST’) and when administered to dairy cows
has the effect of increasing their milk production. Before              (1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
veterinary products, such as sometribove, can be put on the
Community market, a maximum residue limit (‘MRL’) must be
established, in conformity with Article 7 of Council Regulation
No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary med-
icinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1).
                                                                        Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd.,
On 14 January 1997, the Commission decided to reject the                against the Council of the European Union, the European
request for the inclusion of sometribove (bovine somatropine)           Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, in spite                                         munities
of the fact that the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Products (‘CVMP’) had come to the conclusion that it was not
necessary for the protection of public health to establish MRL                                   (Case T-383/00)
for BST and had recommended the inclusion of this product
in the list of substances not subject to MRL in Annex II. This                                    (2001/C 61/40)
decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance.
As the result of the judgment, the Commission decided to send                             (Language of the case: English)
the file back to the CVMP for a new opinion on BST. In July
1999, the CVMP re-evaluated BST taking into account all                 An action against the Council of the European Union, the
the latest available scientific information and confirmed its           European Parliament and the Commission of the European
previous opinion that residues of BST are safe and that BST             Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
should therefore be included in Annex II. On 13 July 2000,              of the European Communities on 22 December 2000 by
the Commission submitted to the Council its final proposition           Beamglow Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of
for inclusion of BST in Annex II. On 28 September 2000, the             the United Kingdom, represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of
Council decided not to adopt the Commission’s proposal. It is           Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).
this decision that is challenged by the applicant in the present
case.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant contends that the contested decision should be            —    order the European Community, as represented here
annulled for the following reasons:                                          by the Council of the European Union, the European
                                                                             Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                             munities, as jointly and severally liable, to repair the
1.    Infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No. 2377/90.                   damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
      The applicant maintains that:                                          unlawful behaviour of the European Community and to
                                                                             set the amount of compensation at GBP 2 042 000 for
      (a)   the Council could not reject the Commission’s                    the period up to December 2000 plus GBP 79 000 per
            proposal in the absence of any new information or                month from that date to the date of judgment or any
            any reassessment of existing information on the                  other amount reflecting the actual damage suffered by
            bases of which the opinion of the CVMP might be                  the applicant as established by it in the course of the
            called into question;                                            proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.2.2001
—     order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
      on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;                —     rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
                                                                               reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
—     order the European Community, as represented here                        respect of his pension rights;
      by the Council of the European Union, the European
      Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
      munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.                    —     rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
                                                                               1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
                                                                               the European Investment Bank;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The              Pleas in law and main arguments
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
                                                                         submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures       should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute                   defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European                 EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to              settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United               satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy                extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this         Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %                The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
ad valorem duties.                                                       that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
                                                                         was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
                                                                         necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in                paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious                 reimbursement of his pension rights.
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the           The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international            to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
obligations.                                                             in April 1993.
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
            against the European Investment Bank                         Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
                                                                                Gonçalves against the European Parliament
                        (Case T-385/00)
                                                                                (Case T-386/00)
                         (2001/C 61/41)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident in                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the                   28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.                       Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.


title: Case C-403/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Milano, Sezione IV Penale by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Marcello Dell'Utri, Romano Luzi and Romano Comincioli

text:
C 19/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          interest may assume a Community dimension, to provide
Milano, Sezione IV Penale by order of that Court of                             in respect of offences under Article 2622(1) of the Civil
29 October 2002 in the criminal proceedings against                             Code (those committed in regard to companies not listed
Marcello Dell’Utri, Romano Luzi and Romano Comincioli                           on the stock exchange) that proceedings may only be
                                                                                brought upon a complaint by members of the company
                                                                                concerned or by its creditors?
                        (Case C-403/02)
                                                                         (1 ) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-
                                                                              ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests
                                                                              of members and others, are required by Member States of
                                                                              companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of
                         (2003/C 19/24)                                       Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
                                                                              equivalent throughout the Community (English Special Edition...:
                                                                              Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano,
Sezione IV Penale (Milan District Court, Fourth Criminal
                                                                         Action brought on 15 November 2002 by the Com-
Chamber) of 29 October 2002, received at the Court Registry
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                                ic Republic
proceedings against Marcello Dell’Utri, Romano Luzi and
Romano Comincioli on the following questions:
                                                                                (Case C-407/02)
—    May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC ( 1) (first directive)                                    (2003/C 19/25)
     be understood as requiring the Member States to establish
     appropriate penalties not only for non-disclosure by
     commercial companies of balance sheets and profit and
     loss accounts but also for false disclosure of such                 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
     documents, of other company documents addressed to                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 Nov-
     members or to the public, or of any information on a                ember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
     company’s assets and liabilities, and economic and finan-           ties, represented by Michel Nolin and Minas Konstantinidis, of
     cial situation which the company is required to provide             its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     in relation to itself or to the group of which it forms a
     part?
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
—    Must the concept of the ‘appropriateness’ of the penalty,           a)     declare that, as a result of the direct award by the
     for the purposes also of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, be                    municipality of Serres of the contract ‘Renewal of the
     understood in terms to be specifically assessed within the                 town of Serres: framework of investigative study models
     legislative scope (both criminal and procedural) of the                    and pilot realisation programme’ without tenders first
     Member States as requiring a penalty which is ‘efficacious,                being invited, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
     effective and genuinely dissuasive’?                                       obligations under the provisions of Directive 92/50/
                                                                                EEC (1) (Article 8 et seq.) which require a tender procedure
                                                                                to be carried out and lay down the tender procedure for
—    Do the combined provisions of new Articles 2621 and                        the award of public service contracts;
     2622 of the Civil Code, as amended by Legislative Decree
     No 61 of 11 April 2002, satisfy those criteria: in                  b)     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     particular can Article 2621 of the Civil Code, which
     summarily punishes by a term of imprisonment of one
     year and six months offences in connection with non-
     disclosure of balance sheets not occasioning financial loss         Pleas in law and main arguments
     or occasioning loss but in respect of which no prosecution
     may be brought under Article 2622 of the Civil Code
     owing to the absence of a complaint, be described as                The provisions of Directive 92/50 govern the choice of
     ‘effectively dissuasive’ and ‘genuinely appropriate’? Finally,      procedures for the award of public service contracts and lay
     is it appropriate, in terms not least of the specific               down common rules in the field of design contests and in the
     protection of the collective interest in the ‘transparency’         technical field. Those provisions apply to contracts whose
     of the corporate market, and the possibility that that              estimated value is equal to or exceeds a specified threshold.


               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/20

         (2005/C 315/37)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

      OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

      OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

      OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

      OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

      OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-414/05: Order of the President of the Court of 10 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-414/05) (1)

   (2006/C 294/65)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.01.2006.


title: Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Comune di Montorio al Vomano (Case C-334/97)

text:
C 357/ 16                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 11 . 97
2 . Is there a breach of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Article 11 ( 2 ) of Directive 92/85/EEC and clause 2 ( 6 )
      of the Annex to Directive 96/34/EC (2) ( which is yet to
      be transposed ) if an employer wholly excludes women                — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to refund :
      who are on parenting leave (Erziehungsurlaub) at the
      time of payment of the Christmas bonus from receipt                      — Lit 455 200 000, together with Lit 650 885 399 by
      of the bonus and does not take into account work
                                                                                way of interest, in respect of the financing of
      performed and periods completed for the protection                           contract 147,
      of mothers (in which they were prohibited from
      working)?
                                                                               — Lit 158 400 000, together with Lit 243 672 000 by
                                                                                way of interest, in respect of the financing of
                                                                                contract 149 ,
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative :
                                                                               that is to say, the total §um of Lit 1 508 157 399
                                                                               together with further interest as from 31 August 1997
      Is there a breach of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                       until the day on which repayment is fully effected,
      Article 11 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 92/85/EEC and clause 2               following rescission of the two contracts referred to
       ( 6 ) of the Annex to Directive 96/34/EC if, when                       above,
      awarding a Christmas bonus to a woman who is on
      parenting leave, an employer takes into account the
      following periods by way of pro rata reduction:                     — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the
                                                                               Commission Lit 50 000 000 by way of damages or
                                                                               such sum as may be considered due compensation for
      — periods of parenting leave;                                            the damage suffered by reason of its faillure to
                                                                               perform its obligations,
      — periods for the protection of mothers ( in which she              — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the
             was prohibited from working)?                                     costs .
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Arbeitsgericht requests the Court of Justice to give a
ruling, in the context of the questions referred by it, also
on the scope of clause 2 ( 6 ) of the Annex to Directive 96/              The object of this action, which is based on an arbitration
34/EC .                                                                   clause, is to recover financial assistance which the
                                                                          Commission granted the defendant so that it could
                                                                          construct ( a ) a 225 kW combined wind/diesel energy
(') OJ L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992, p. 1 .                                     system with optimum power distribution ( contract No WE/
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 19 . 6 . 1996 , p. 4 .
                                                                          147-85 ) and ( b ) a hydroelectric generator plant combined
                                                                          with a wind/diesel energy system ( contract No HY/149
                                                                          85 ). The Commission decided to withdraw from the
                                                                          contracts, drawn up between the parties in accordance
                                                                          with Italian law, on account of the defendant's failure to
                                                                          perform its obligations thereunder.
Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Comune di
                          Montorio al Vomano
                             ( Case C-334/97)
                                                                          Reference for preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Ant
                               ( 97/C 357/28 )                            werpen by judgment of that court of 17 September 1997
                                                                          in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Wim
                                                                                Westenborg
                                                                                Case C-335 /97 )
An action against the Comune di Montorio al Vomano
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                            ( 97/C 357/29
Communities on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Paolo
Stancanelli of its Legal Service, assisted by Alberto Dal                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ferro, Avvocato, acting as Agents, with an address for                    European Communities by judgment of the Arbeidshof
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 (Higher Labour Court), Antwerp, of 17 September 1997,
Cruz, Wagner Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi .                              received at the Court Registry on 26 September 1997, for


title: Case T-203/10: Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/51

         Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission
   (Case T-203/10)
   2010/C 179/87
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Woonpunt (Beek, Netherlands), Stichting Com.wonen (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Woningstichting Haag Wonen (The Hague, Netherlands), Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Henny, T. Ottervanger and P. Glazener, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision concerning existing aid, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision concerning new aid, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.
   The applicants put forward eight pleas in law in support of the first head of claim. Those pleas are the same as the pleas which the applicants put forward in Case T-202/10 Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission.
   The applicants put forward three further pleas in support of their second head of claim.
   First, according to the applicants, the Commission infringed Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and Regulation No 659/1999 (1) by deeming project aid for declining urban areas to be part of an existing aid scheme, and by imposing mandatory requirements without following the procedure laid down under Regulation No 659/1999.
   Second, the applicants submit that the Commission erroneously took the view that the fourth criterion referred to in Altmark
       (2) had not been satisfied inasmuch as housing corporations are not chosen by means of a public procurement procedure. According to the applicants, the Commission should have confined itself to checking that the measure did not lead to inefficiency.
   Third, the applicants claim that the Commission should have considered whether there was any overcompensation for the service of general economic interest.

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

      (2)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I 7747.


title: Case T-586/08: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2010 — Kerma v OHIM (BIOPIETRA) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark BIOPIETRA — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2010 — Kerma v OHIM (BIOPIETRA)
      (Case T-586/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark BIOPIETRA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 161/62)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Kerma SpA (Raffa di Puegnago sul Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Manzoni, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2008 (Case R 889/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BIOPIETRA as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Kerma SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-475/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance trifluralin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Action for annulment — Evaluation procedure — New study and additional study — Time-limits — Concepts of risk and hazard — Manifest error of assessment — Draft review report — Draft directive or decision — Time-limits — Consequences of possible non-compliance — Legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Decision 1999/468/EC ( the comitology decision ) — Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 — Article 3(3) — Plea of illegality)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-475/07) (1)

   (Plant-protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Action for annulment - Evaluation procedure - New study and additional study - Time-limits - Concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’ - Manifest error of assessment - Draft review report - Draft directive or decision - Time-limits - Consequences of possible non-compliance - Legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Decision 1999/468/EC (‘the comitology decision’) - Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 - Article 3(3) - Plea of illegality)
   2011/C 311/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dow AgroSciences Ltd and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex, to bear their own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-339/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Court with jurisdiction)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium NV
   (Case C-339/07) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Court with jurisdiction)
   (2009/C 82/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH

      Defendant: Deko Marty Belgium NV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and 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) — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor's main interests is situated in respect of judgments deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings and which are closely linked with them — Action (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) for reimbursement of a payment by the debtor to a company whose registered office is in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose registered office is in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-426/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision of the Board of Appeal remitting the case to the Examination Division — Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Relevant public)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)
   (Case T-426/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision of the Board of Appeal remitting the case to the Examination Division - Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Relevant public)
   2013/C 79/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (Saint-Hélier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1294/2010-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-321/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 6 June 2003, in the case of Dyson Ltd against Registrar of Trade Marks

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 239/1
                                                                        I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                    Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order                     the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
of that court dated 6 June 2003, in the case of Dyson Ltd
                 against Registrar of Trade Marks
                                                                                (Case C-323/03)
                           (Case C-321/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/02)
                           (2003/C 239/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 6 June                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 July                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dyson Ltd and                represented by I. Martínez del Peral and K. Simonsson, acting
Registrar of Trade Marks on the following questions:                       as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
1.     In a situation where an applicant has used a sign (which
       is not a shape) which consists of a feature which has a
       function and which forms part of the appearance of a                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       new kind of article, and the applicant has, until the date
       of application, had a de facto monopoly in such articles,
       is it sufficient, in order for the sign to have acquired a          1.   declare that, by maintaining in force rules which:
       distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(3)
       of Directive 89/104/EC (1), that a significant proportion
       of the relevant public has by the date of application for                —    allow maritime transport services in the Vigo estuary
       registration come to associate the relevant goods bearing                     to be entrusted to a single operator for a period of
       the sign with the applicant and no other manufacturer?                        20 years and which include as a criterion for the
                                                                                award of the right to operate the services experience
                                                                                in transport in the Vigo estuary, which favours the
2.     If that is not sufficient, what else is needed in order for                   existing operator;
       the sign to have acquired a distinctive character and, in
       particular, is it necessary for the person who has used the
       sign to have promoted it as a trade mark?
                                                                                —    allow seasonal transport services with the islands or
                                                                                regular transport services between continental ports
                                                                                to be subject to public-service obligations;
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
     marks, OJ L040, 11.02.1989, p. 1-7.
                                                                                —    permit the introduction of a more restrictive system
                                                                                than that in force on the date on which the
                                                                                Regulation entered into force (January 1993), that is
                                                                                to say, the Decision of 11 June 1984;


title: Case C-224/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/100/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-224/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2009/C 82/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin, V. Peere and H. Stølvbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-265/95)

text:
No C 268/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            is a law of a Member State which, in laying down the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 11 May 1995 in               procedural rules by which citizens who have a right to the
the case of Julius Fillibeck Sôhne GmbH &c Co KG v.                    reparation of damage conferred on them by Community law
                       Finanzamt Neustadt                              following the failure to implement directives which are not
                         ( Case C-258/95 )                             directly applicable, requires the injured party to bring
                             95/C 268/25 )
                                                                       judicial proceedings subject to a one-year limitation period
                                                                       starting from the date when the aforementioned domestic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 rules entered into force compatible with the correct
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as construed in
( Federal Finance Court ) — Fifth Senate — of 1 1 May 1 995 ,          the light of the principles laid down in the case-law of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1995 ,             Court of Justice cited in the grounds of this order, where, in
                                                                       contrast, under the domestic law of the Member State in
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Julius Fillibeck Sohne
GmbH & Co KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt on the following                    question actions for the reparation of non-contractual
questions :                                                            damage are normally subject to a five-year prescription
                                                                       period and the action for obtaining social security payments
1 . does the transport service of an employer constitute a             under the statutory system arising out of the full
    service 'effected for consideration' within the meaning            implementation of the Directive ( Directive 80/987/EEC of
    of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/3 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) — that is to    20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
    say, effected for a proportion to be estimated of the              Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
    work performed by the employees — where, pursuant to               event of the insolvency of the employer ) is subject to a
    a collective agreement, the employer carries employees             time-limit of one year, which, however, is a period of
     ( without specially agreed and calculated consideration )         prescription, thereby introducing, for the purposes of the
    from their homes to the workplace where they are more              judicial protection of rights based on Community law, a
    than a specified distance apart, and the work performed            procedural mechanism which differs in the aforementioned
    — which has no actual connection with such transport               respects from ' similar' actions and remedies provided for by
    services — is already to be carried out in return for the          the domestic law of the Member State in question, it being
    agreed money wages as in the case of the other                     pointed out that, in any event, all claims for payments to be
    employees ?                                                        made by the agency which is under a duty under the law to
                                                                       make reparation for the damage are subject at present to a
2 . Does Article 6 ( 2)ofDirective77/388/EECcovertheuse                one-year limitation period under the domestic law of the
    of goods forming part of the assets of the business or a           Member State in question ? Is the national court bound,
    service carried out free of charge even where — as in the          where appropriate , to disapply that limitation period,
    case of the carriage of employees from their homes to the          thereby enabling citizens who have suffered damage to bring
    workplace and back in a vehicle of the undertaking free            an action outside the one-year limitation period and, if so,
    of charge — it does not serve purposes other than those            within the five-year prescription period prescribed for the
    of the business as far as the employer is concerned , but          ordinary action for reparation or within the one-year
    does serve the employees' private purposes and the                 prescription period laid down for obtaining social security
    employees are not charged turnover tax in this respect             payments under the ' basic' system ?
     ( on account of their use free of charge of the transport
    service )?
3 . In the event that question 2 is answered in the
    affirmative : does Article 6 ( 2 ) of Directive 77/338/EEC
    also cover a case where the employer does not carry the
    employees in its own vehicles, but commissions a third             Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
    party ( in the instant case, one of its own employees ) to            European Communities against the French Republic
    effect the transport ?
                                                                                Case C-265 /95 )
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                                         95/C 268 /27
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
Circondariale di Frosinone by order of that court of 27 June           Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
        1995 in the case of Rosalba Palmisani v. INPS                  Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national official on
                         ( Case C-261/95 )
                                                                       secondment to the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                           ( 95/C 268/26 )                             Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 June 1995 of the                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Pretura Circondariale di Frosinone ( Magistrates' Court,               the Court should :
Fronsinone ), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                — declare that, by failing to adopt all the appropriate
Pasalba Palmisani v . INPS on the following question :                     measures necessary in order to prevent acts committed
 ---pagebreak--- 14. 10. 95            1 EN j               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 268/13
     by individuals from obstructing the free movement of             forces of law and order have either not been present or have
     fruit and vegetables, the French Republic has failed to          declined to take any active steps to prevent destruction from
     fulfil its obligations under the common organization of          taking place, or have failed to make use of information
     the market in agricultural products and Article 30 of the        available to them in order to avert incidents . Furthermore,
     EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 5 thereof,                 the facts communicated do not show that the French
                                                                      authorities have taken the measures necessary in order
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                        effectively to penalize those responsible for the acts of
                                                                      destruction and menaces .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 30 of the EC Treaty must be regarded as forming part
of the common organization of the market in agricultural              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
products . The right to the free movement of goods enshrined         Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by order of that
in the Treaty obliges Member States to adopt all appropriate          court of 13 July 1995 , in the case of Beecham Group pic
measures to ensure compliance with that principle,                                   against Europharm of Worthing Ltd
including measures against individuals who compromise the
                                                                                ( Case C-268/95 )
exercise of that right.
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/28 )
In 1993 , the Commission was forced to conclude that acts of
violence ( attacks upon, and the destruction of, shipments            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and means of transport, threats against lorry-drivers and             European Communities by an order of the High Court of
distributors of fruit and vegetables ) had ceased to be acts of       Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, of 13 July 1995 ,
an isolated and impulsive nature, as they had been in the             which was received at the Court Registry on 9 August 1995 ,
past, and had , at the prompting of certain groups such as            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Beecham Group pic
Coordination rurale, become part of an organized plan to              against Europharm of Worthing Ltd, on the following
control the supply of goods imported from other Member                questions :
States . Between April and July 1993 , shipments of Spanish
fruit and vegetables , in particular strawberries intended for        1.     that the provisions and effect of Article 47 of the
the French market or in transit on the territory of the French               Spanish Treaty of Accession to the European
Republic, were subjected to a campaign of harassment                         Communities will continue to apply to pharmaceutical
orchestrated by the Coordination rurale movement. In                         products
August and September, shipments of tomatoes from
Belgium were in turn targeted by Coordination rurale.                 1.1 imported from Spain, or
Between April and May 1994 , a fresh campaign of violence
was launched in France with a view to obstructing the free            1.2 first marketed in Spain
movement on French territory of strawberries arriving from
Spain and Morocco . In addition, the Commission received              until
information regarding various illegal activities by
organizations such as Coordination rurale, which continued                   ( a ) 7 October 1995 , or
to threaten and blackmail wholesale and retail commercial
centres offering for sale products from other Member States                  ( b ) 31 December 1995 , or
( for example, Spanish strawberries and Belgian
tomatoes ).                                                                  (c ) 7 October 1996 , or
Given that the Community is entitled, in view of the                         ( d ) 31 December 1996, or
repeated and serious infringements of the French Penal
Code which have taken place over several years ( acts of                     ( e ) the end of the third year after the particular
destruction and menaces by gangs ), to expect the French                           pharmaceutical, protected by a product patent in
authorities, in particular the forces of law and order and the                     one or more Member State(s ) of the European
judicial authorities , to take action to prevent and suppress                      Union and which was previously unpatentable in
such infringements on the basis of clear and positive                              Spain, has become patentable in Spain
instructions, by means of an appropriate, vigorous and
rapid system of police intervention putting an effective stop         stating which of such dates is applicable with regard to such
to such destruction and menaces, and by means of effective            acts .
judicial investigations undertaken with the resolute aim of
prosecuting offenders, the Commission is bound to                     2.     After the expiration of Article 47, in case where :
conclude that the response of the French authorities is
inadequate in structural terms .
                                                                      2.1 an undertaking is the proprietor ( the 'Proprietor') of a
                                                                             patent (the 'Patent') in one or more Member States of
It appears from the facts available to the Commission that,                  the European Communities ( the 'Member State') for a
all too often, and repeatedly over a number of years, the                    pharmaceutical product ( the 'Pharmaceutical');


title: Case T-217/09: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Dresden v Commission

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/26

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Dresden v Commission
   (Case T-217/09) (1)

   2013/C 141/48
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-61/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte D’Appello Di Trento (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Hassen El Dridi alias Karim Soufi

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte D’Appello Di Trento (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Hassen El Dridi alias Karim Soufi
   (Case C-61/11)
   2011/C 113/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte D’Appello Di Trento

      Party to the main proceedings

   Hassen El Dridi, alias Karim Soufi

      Questions referred

   In the light of the principle of sincere cooperation, the purpose of which is to ensure the attainment of the objectives of the directive, and the principle that the penalty must be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude:

               1.

               the possibility that criminal sanctions may be imposed in respect of a breach of an intermediate stage in the administrative return procedure, before that procedure is completed, by having recourse to the most severe administrative measure of constraint which remains available?

               2.

               the possibility of a sentence of up to four years’ imprisonment being imposed in respect of a simple failure to cooperate in the deportation procedure on the part of the person concerned, in particular where the first removal order issued by the administrative authorities has not been complied with?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-11/16: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — De Masi v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No confirmatory decision — Request for access on the basis of interinstitutional cooperation under Article 230 TFEU — Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council — Act not amenable to review — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/15

         Order of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — De Masi v Commission
   (Case T-11/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No confirmatory decision - Request for access on the basis of interinstitutional cooperation under Article 230 TFEU - Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council - Act not amenable to review - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 269/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fischer-Lescano, Professor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, J. Baquero Cruz and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment, first, of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 9 December 2015 responding to the request for access to the documents of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’, submitted by the applicant on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and, secondly, of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 9 November 2015 responding to the request for access to the same documents submitted by the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Fabio De Masi shall bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 July 1998 in Joined Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97: John Mellett v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Admissibility - Establishment - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment)

text:
C 312/10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 21 July 1998                                                     of 16 July 1998
                                                                    in Case T-93/96 Catherine Presle v. European Centre for
in Joined Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97: John Mellett v.
                                                                             the Development of Vocational Training (1)
     Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Change of posting Ð Obligation to state
(Officials Ð Admissibility Ð Establishment Ð Legitimate             reasons Ð Principle of protection of legitimate
              expectations Ð Equal treatment)                                       expectations Ð Duty of care)
                        (98/C 312/26)                                                        (98/C 312/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-93/96 Catherine Presle, an official of the
                                                                    European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                                                                    Training, residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
In Joined Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97: John Mellett, a               of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
member of the temporary staff at the Court of Justice of            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
the European Communities, residing at 61 Rue des                    rue, against European Centre for the Development of
Maraîchers, Plateau du Kirchberg, Luxembourg,                       Vocational Training (Agent: Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð
represented by Brendan O'Donovan, Solicitor, and Conor              application for annulment of the decision of the European
Quigley, Barrister, with an address for service in                  Centre for the Development of Vocational Training of
Luxembourg at the aforementioned address, against Court             22 May 1996 transferring the applicant to Thessalonika
of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: Timothy              (Greece) as from 1 July 1996 Ð the Court (Fifth
Millett) Ð application, in Case T-66/96, for annulment of           Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R.
the decision of the Court of Justice of the European                García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Communities of 14 June 1995 and, in Case T-221/97, for              Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative
annulment of the decisions of the President of the Court            part of which is as follows:
of Justice of 17 October 1996 and 4 December 1996 not
to commence the procedure leading to the establishment
of the applicant as a permanent official Ð the Court of             1. The application is dismissed.
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; A.           2. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs,
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                     including those incurred in the interim proceedings.
judgment on 21 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                    (1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.
1. joins Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97 for the purposes of
    the judgment;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. annuls the decision of 14 June 1995 of the
    Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice, as it                                of 16 July 1998
    is apparent from point 4 of the minutes, and the                in Case T-72/97: Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desinvolvi-
    decisions of the President of the Court of Justice of           mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v. Commission of the
    17 October 1996 and 4 December 1996 not to                                        European Communities (1)
    commence the procedure which could have led to the
    establishment of the applicant as a permanent official;         (European Social Fund Ð Decision to reduce two financial
                                                                    aids Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð
                                                                    Certification of factual and accounting accuracy Ð Lack
                                                                    of competence of the national body Ð Statement of
3. orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs in Case                           reasons Ð Rights of the defence)
    T-66/96 and in Case T-221/97.
                                                                                (98/C 312/28)
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996 and C 331, 1.11.1997.                                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                    In Case T-72/97: Proderec FormacËaÄo e Desinvolvimento
                                                                    de Recursos Humanos, ACE, established in Almada


title: Case T-61/07: Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/49

         Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-61/07)
   (2007/C 95/99)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

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

               —

               annul memorandum No 12244 of 14.12.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma DOCUP Lazio (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 009);

               —

               annul memorandum No 12528 of 19.12.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma DOCUP Piemonte (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 007);

               —

               annul memorandum No 12558 of 20.12.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma POR Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 009);

               —

               annul memorandum No 00321 of 16.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma DOCUP Lazio (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 009);

               —

               annul memorandum No 00322 of 16.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning certification of the intermediate statement of expenses and claim for payment. Ref. DOCUP Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 005);

               —

               annul memorandum No 00324 of 16.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma POR Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 010);

               —

               annul memorandum No 00325 of 16.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma POR Campania 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 007);

               —

               annul memorandum No 00425 of 18.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma DOCUP Toscana Ob. 2 (No CCI 1999 IT 162 DO 001);

               —

               annul memorandum No 00427 of 18.1.2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma POR Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 009);

               —

               annul all related and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italy v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.04, p. 55.


title: Case C-375/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 July 2013 — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank PLC

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 July 2013 — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank PLC
   (Case C-375/13)
   2013/C 274/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Harald Kolassa

      Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC

      Questions referred

                  A.

                  Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
                   (1)
                  (the Brussels I Regulation):

                           1.

                           Is the wording ‘in matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession’ in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that:

                                       1.1.

                                       an applicant, who has acquired a bearer bond as a consumer on the secondary market and now makes claims against the issuer of the bond based on prospectus liability, for breach of information and control obligations, and based on the bond terms and conditions, can invoke that ground of jurisdiction, if, by purchasing the security from a third party, the applicant has entered derivatively into the contractual relationship between the issuer and the original subscriber of the bond?

                                       1.2.

                                       (if question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative) the applicant can invoke the wording of Article 15 of that regulation even if the third party from whom the consumer purchased the bearer bond acquired it for a purpose which can be regarded as being within his trade or profession, and the applicant therefore takes over the bond relationship from a non-consumer?

                                       1.3.

                                       (if questions 1.1. and 1.2. are answered in the affirmative) the applicant consumer can invoke jurisdiction as a consumer under Article 15 of that regulation even if he himself is not the holder of the bond, but the third party, whom the applicant contracted to acquire the securities and who himself is not a consumer, holds it in his own name in trust for the applicant in accordance with their agreement, and owes the applicant only a contractual obligation of delivery?

                           2.

                           (if question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative) Does Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 also provide the basis for accessory jurisdiction of the court seised of contractual claims arising from a bond purchase for claims in tort/delict arising from the same bond purchase?

                  B.

                  Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation):

                           1.

                           Is the wording ‘in matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that:

                                       1.1.

                                       an applicant, who has acquired a bearer bond as a consumer on the secondary market and now makes claims against the issuer of the bond based on prospectus liability, for breach of information and control obligations, and based on the bond terms and conditions, can invoke that ground of jurisdiction, if, by purchasing the security from a third party, the applicant has entered derivatively into the contractual relationship between the issuer and the original subscriber of the bond?

                                       1.2.

                                       (if question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative) the applicant can invoke the wording of Article 5(1)(a) of that regulation even if he himself is not the holder of the bond, but the third party, whom the applicant contracted to acquire the securities, holds it in his own name in trust for the applicant in accordance with their agreement, and owes the applicant only a contractual obligation of delivery?

                           2.

                           (if question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative) Does Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 also provide the basis for accessory jurisdiction of the court seised of contractual claims arising from a bond purchase for claims in tort/delict arising from the same bond purchase?

                  C.

                  Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation):

                           1.

                           Are capital market-related prospectus liability claims, and claims based on breach of obligations to protect and advise in connection with the issue of a bearer bond, claims in tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001?

                                       1.1.

                                       (if question 1. is answered in the affirmative) Does the same apply if a person who is not himself the holder of the bond, but has only a contractual claim for delivery against the holder who is holding the bond in trust for him, asserts such claims against the issuer of the bond?

                           2.

                           Is the wording ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that, when a security is purchased on the basis of deliberately misleading information,

                                       2.1.

                                       the place where the damage occurred is taken to be the domicile of the person suffering the loss, being the place where his assets are concentrated?

                                       2.2.

                                       (if question 2.1. is answered in the affirmative) Does the same apply if the purchase order and the transfer of value can be revoked until settlement of the transaction, and settlement took place in another Member State sometime after the withdrawal from the account of the person suffering the loss?

                  D.

                  Examination as to jurisdiction — ‘doubly relevant’ facts

                           1.

                           Should the court, in the context of its examination as to jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 25 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, conduct a comprehensive taking of evidence in relation to disputed facts which are of relevance both for the question of jurisdiction and for the existence of the claim (‘doubly relevant facts’) or should it, when determining jurisdiction, start from the premise that the facts asserted by the applicant are correct?

      (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.


title: Case T-274/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/36

         Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)
   (Case T-274/17)
   (2017/C 221/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘MONSTER DIP’ — Application for registration No 13 118 211

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 in Case R 1062/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 April 2016 in opposition B 2433681;

               —

               reject the opposed mark for all goods and services;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-295/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/43/EC — Company law — Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-295/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/43/EC - Company law - Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 100/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ L 157, p. 87)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-301/03 Canali Ireland Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark CANAL JEAN CO. NEW YORK — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CANALI — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 June 2005
   in Case T-301/03 Canali Ireland Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative mark CANAL JEAN CO. NEW YORK - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CANALI - Likelihood of confusion)
   (2005/C 217/81)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-301/03: Canali Ireland Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by C. Gielen and O. Schmutzer, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. Apostolidis and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Canal Jean Co. Inc., established in New York (United States), represented by M. Cover, Solicitor — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2003 (Case R 103/2002-2) relating to Opposition Proceedings No 78859 between Canali SpA and Canal Jean Co. Inc. — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; B. Pastor, Assistant Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003


title: Case C-135/03: Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 146/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                       Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
                         (Case C-135/03)                               derivatives of the term designating organic agricultural
                                                                       methods in any of the official languages of the European
                                                                       Community for products which have not been obtained by
                         (2003/C 146/39)                               means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
                                                                       term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
                                                                       derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before              National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March           the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo         with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in       (Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
Luxembourg.                                                            by Real Decreto 506/2001, infringes Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 2092/91.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Such national legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of
                                                                       Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
—    Declare that:                                                     methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
                                                                       particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in
     —    by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in           particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,
          current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in               quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
          combination with other terms, for products which             ture or production.
          have not been obtained in accordance with organic
          production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in
          conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation             (1 ) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
          (EEC) No 2092/91 ( 1) of 24 June 1991 on organic             (2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
          production of agricultural products and indications               tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
          referring thereto on agricultural products and food-              products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.
          stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/              (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
          95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 (3);by failing to adopt              plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
          the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of               of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
          that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-               agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-
          tion with Article 10a of the abovementioned                       duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.
          amended regulation; and by failing to adopt                  (4 ) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
          measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
          as to the method of manufacture or production
          of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
          abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
          with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
          the European Parliament and of the Council of
          20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
          of the Member States relating to the labelling,              Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
          presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 4); and         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
     —    by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
          contrary to the same provisions, use of the term                                       (Case C-139/03)
          ‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
          for dairy products in respect of which that term has
          been customarily and continuously used when they                                       (2003/C 146/40)
          have not been obtained in accordance with organic
          production methods,
                                                                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
                                                                       ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
     particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;
                                                                       Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and
                                                                       Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
—    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      in Luxembourg.