title: Case T-163/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret.service.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark secret.service. — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret.service.)
   (Case T-163/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark secret.service. - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 1820/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign secret.service. as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 1999 in Joined Cases C-425/97 to C-427/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): Criminal proceedings against Adrianus Albers (C-425/97) Martinus Van den Berkmortel (C-426/97) and Leon Nuchelmans (C-427/97) (Directive 83/189/EEC - Technical regulations - Obligation to notify - Prohibition on growth promoters)

text:
17.7.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/15
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                 A rule such as that in Article 3(1) of the Verordening Stoffen met
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   sympathico mimetische werking (PVV) 1991, read in conjunction
judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it has ruled:                             with Article 2 of that Verordening, constitutes a technical regulation
                                                                            within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March
On a correct interpretation of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC             1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC), a                 the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by
Member State is prevented from restricting the transport by road of         Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, in respect of
animals for slaughter by requiring such transport to be carried out         which the Member State which adopted it is exempt, under Article
only as far as the nearest suitable abattoir within national territory      10 of that directive, from the obligation to notify the Commission
and under conditions such that, upon observance of the motor vehicle        laid down in Article 8 thereof.
and traffic regulations, a total journey time of six hours and a
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, account being taken of         (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
only half of the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            of 19 May 1999
                           of 11 May 1999                                   in Case C-6/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases C-425/97 to C 427/97 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te                                  (State aid — Definition — Tax credit — Recovery —
’s-Hertogenbosch): Criminal proceedings against Adrianus                                          Absolute impossibility)
Albers (C-425/97) Martinus Van den Berkmortel (C-
        426/97) and Leon Nuchelmans (C-427/97) (1)                                                    (1999/C 204/29)
(Directive 83/189/EEC — Technical regulations — Obli-
    gation to notify — Prohibition on growth promoters)                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (1999/C 204/28)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            In Case C-6/97: Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza,
                                                                            assisted by Oscar Fiumara) v Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Communities (Agents: Laura Pignataro, Anders C. Jessen
                    in the European Court Reports)                          and Enrico Altieri) — application for the annulment of
                                                                            Commission Decision 97/270/EC of 22 October 1996 on a
In Joined Cases C-425/97 to C-427/97: references to the Court               tax credit scheme introduced by Italy for professional road
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof                     hauliers (C 45/95 ex NN 48/95) (OJ 1997 L 106, p. 22) — the
(Regional Court of Appeal), ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands),                 Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), G.F. Mancini, H. Rag-
before that court against Adrianus Albers (C-425/97) Martinus               nemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; Advocate General; D. Ruiz-
Van den Berkmortel (C-426/97) and Leon Nuchelmans (C-                       Jarabo Colomer; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
427/97) — on the interpretation of Council Directive                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:
83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for
the provision of information in the field of technical standards            1. Dismisses the application;
and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council
Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75)                 2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,             (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it
has ruled:


title: Case F-41/07: Action brought on 2 May 2007 — Fernandez García and García Rato v Court of Justice

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/46

         Action brought on 2 May 2007 — Fernandez García and García Rato v Court of Justice
   (Case F-41/07)
   (2007/C 140/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Brigida Fernandez García (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Carolina García Rato (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of the European Communities in so far as they fix their grade of recruitment under Article 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, successful candidates in competition CJ/LA/25 (1), the notice of which was published before 1 May 2004, were recruited after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (2).
   In their action, the applicants claim, first, that the contested decisions misapplied the legal framework established by the notice of competition. Under Article 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, they were recruited in a grade lower than that indicated in the notice of competition.
   The applicants also plead that the contested decisions infringe Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The grade and step of successful candidates in the same competition or in competitions at the same level was fixed at different levels depending on whether they were recruited before or after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004.
   In addition, the applicants plead breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since they legitimately expected to be recruited in the grade indicated in the notice of the competition for filling the posts for which they applied.

      (1)  OJ C 182 A of 31.07.2002, p. 8.

      (2)  OJ L 124 of 27.04.2004, p. 1.


title: Case C-206/05: Action brought on 11 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/4

         Action brought on 11 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-206/05)
   (2005/C 229/08)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Friedrich Erlbacher and Knut Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               first, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae;
               second, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion must be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before it may be used for breeding with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, the Kingdom of Sweden is restricting trade in horses within the Community.
   The fact that in Directive 90/427/EEC, or in any decision adopted on the basis of the directive, methods for assessment for stud purposes are not established does not mean that a Member State is entitled to lay down such a requirement. Moreover, the Swedish requirement for such an assessment is not justified by Article 30 EC in the interest of protecting the health and life of animals. The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Sweden's requirement for an assessment seems to be more in order to improve the characteristics of current breeds than to protect the health and life of horses.


title: Case C-259/99 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 1999 by Karola Gluiber against the order made on 5 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-190/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 299/8               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16.10.1999
Appeal brought on 12 July 1999 by Karola Gluiber against               Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly
the order made on 5 May 1999 by the First Chamber of                   against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
in Case T-190/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council of the                  European Communities in Joined Cases T-34/96 and
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                     T-163/96 between Mr Connolly and the Commission of
                            munities                                                     the European Communities
                       (Case C-259/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-274/99 P)
                        (1999/C 299/08)
An appeal against the order made on 5 May 1999 by the First                                    (1999/C 299/09)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-190/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council
of the European Union and Commission of the European                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the             the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 July 1999 by Karola Gluiber,                European Communities in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96
represented by Jean-Claude Schöninger, Rechtsanwalt, of                between Mr B. Connolly and the Commission of the European
Mühlgasse 6, D-77933 Lahr.                                             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 20 July 1999 by Mr Connolly,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van Gehuch-
                                                                       ten, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(1) set aside the order made by the Court of First Instance of         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
    the European Communities on 5 May 1999 in Case                     Rheinsheim.
    T-190/98;
(2) order the respondent to pay the appellant compensation             The appellant claims that the Court should:
    in the sum of DM 25 700 .32 for the costs incurred by her
    in unsuccessful legal proceedings before the German courts
    and the Court of Justice;
                                                                       Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
(3) order the respondents to pay the appellant damages in              European Communities of 19 May 1999 in Joined Cases
    respect of non-contractual liability;                              T-34/96 and T-163/96
(4) order the respondent to pay the costs of the present
    proceedings;
                                                                       and uphold the actions by the applicant in which he sought:
(5) declare that the Community is required to pay compen-
    sation, even in the future, for the damage caused by illegal
    acts perpetrated hitherto;                                         — annulment in so far as necessary of the opinion of the
                                                                           Disciplinary Board of 7 December 1995, notified on
(6) alternatively, stay the proceedings pursuant to Article                15 December, recommending that the applicant be penal-
    82a(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice            ised by removal from his post without reduction or
    in order to enable a preliminary ruling to be obtained from            withdrawal of pension rights;
    the European Court of Human Rights concerning the
    finding that the incomplete transposition into German law
    of Council Directive 76/207/EEC infringes, as regards the          — annulment of the Commission’s decision of 16 January
    appellant;                                                             1996 imposing upon the applicant the penalty of removal
                                                                           from his post without reduction or withdrawal of pension
    (a) Article 6 of the European Convention on Human                      rights;
         Rights (‘ECHR’);
    (b) Article 11 of the ECHR;                                        — annulment of the express rejection of 12 July 1996,
                                                                           notified to the applicant by letter of 18 July 1996, of his
    (c) Article 14 of the ECHR; and                                        pre-litigation action of 7 March 1996 against the opinion
                                                                           of the Disciplinary Board and the decision of the Com-
    (d) Article 50 of the ECHR.                                            mission referred to above;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        — an order that the Commission pay him, subject to increase
— failure to observe the appellant’s right to     a fair hearing,          or decrease in the course of the proceedings, the sum of
    since the application was dismissed           as manifestly            FB 7 500 000 for material damage and the sum of FB
    unfounded pursuant to Article 111 of           the Rules of            1 500 000 for non material damage by way of compen-
    Procedure of the Court of First Instance      without being            sation for the damage suffered by reason of the illegalities
    served on the respondents;                                             and irregularities complained of.
— infringement of substantive law.
                                                                       And order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs of
                                                                       the two sets of proceedings.


title: Case C-132/00: Action brought on 7 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 176/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC: the Commission
                                                                             maintains that any aid the amount of which depends on
                                                                             the quantities produced must be regarded as operating aid
1. annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
                                                                             which is incompatible with the common market, since it
    concerning aid for horticultural products in Extremadura
                                                                             has no lasting effect on the development of the sector in
    in the 1997/98 marketing year;
                                                                             question. However, the aid neither has, nor is intended to
                                                                             have, the effect of stimulating the production of vegetables,
2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                         since it was granted on the basis not of the quantity of
                                                                             vegetables produced but of the quantity intended for
                                                                             industrial processing.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the
    common market.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 April 2000 by the Commission of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with               the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    Article 253 EC: the Commission considers that the dero-
    gation contained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable
    because the aid was granted not as regional aid but as
    operating aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s                                    (Case C-132/00)
    reasoning is inconsistent. The objectives assigned by
    Decree 84/1993 to the grant of incentives for horticultural
    products intended for industrial processing expressly
                                                                                (2000/C 176/14)
    include:
    — adapting production to market requirements in such a
         way as to ensure the most efficient use of resources,           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 April
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    — encouraging diversification of alternative forms of                represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,
         irrigation, and                                                 and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on
                                                                         secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
    — promoting development of cultivation having wide-
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
         spread social effects.
    The aid is intended to promote economic development in
    a region where the standard of living is low and there is            The Commission claims that the Court should:
    serious unemployment. It has a clear social purpose, in that
    it seeks to introduce stable relations between producers
    and processors, protecting them by means of officially               1. declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
    approved contracts for the sale and purchase of raw                      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the measures
    materials and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing                which it was obliged to adopt in order to comply with its
    industries and the location of those industries in the                   obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive
    production areas.                                                        75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194,
                                                                             p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                             18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), under Article 6 of
    In view of the foregoing, the Commission should have                     Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
    reasoned that the aid did not fall within the scope of                   hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and under
    Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact that the measures                  Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive
    concerned are specific rather than general. It should also,              94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packag-
    at the very least, have provided justification for its decision,         ing waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10), the Hellenic Republic
    adopted in the exercise of its discretion, not to authorise              has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
    small-scale aid designed to mitigate an abnormally serious
    situation within the Community. By failing to do so, it has
    infringed Article 253 EC.                                            2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 176/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Since that charge is due even where there is no registration
                                                                             to be made in practice and at the same rate regardless of
                                                                             the number of registrations to be made, the basis for its
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (ex                 payment is not the performance of a single operation
Article 189 of the EC Treaty), directives are binding, as to the             (registration of a single instrument) but a series of activities
result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which they                  (involved in keeping the register of companies) intended
are addressed. Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC (ex                to enable companies to register instruments whose regis-
Article 5 of the EC Treaty), Member States are to take all                   tration is required by the Civil Code following registration
appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure               of the constituent instrument;
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Com-             — Moreover, whilst, on the one hand, the amount of the
munity.                                                                      charge appears to be determined on a flat-rate basis
                                                                             according to criteria of reasonableness in the light of its
                                                                             low level (between ITL 750 000 and ITL 90 000 according
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt               to the type of operation), on the other hand, considering
measures to comply with the abovementioned directives by                     that registry fees are also payable and given the basis for
drawing up the required waste management plans.                              its payment, it is certainly determined with reference to
                                                                             the cost not of a single registration (of which there may be
                                                                             none) but of keeping the register of companies in general.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for full implemen-
tation of the directives at issue in Greek law, nor has it notified     (1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969, (II), p. 412.
such measures to the Commission.                                        (2) [1993] ECR I-1915.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di                of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section                  order of that court of 12 November 1999 in the case of
— by order of that court of 8 February 2000 in the case                 ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri
       of Ministry of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l.                   Valsesia SpA against Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni
                        (Case C-134/00)                                                           (Case C-135/00)
                        (2000/C 176/15)                                                           (2000/C 176/16)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                    European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of
Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section — of             the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, of
8 February 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on            12 November 1999, received at the Court Registry on 10 April
10 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministry         2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ANAS — Ente
of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l. on the following question:          Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA against
                                                                        Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni on the following questions:
In an action brought by a capital company before the Italian            (1) In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
courts for reimbursement of the annual administrative charge                 excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
paid from 1985 to 1992 pursuant to laws incompatible with                    their tenders explanations concerning components of the
Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) (Joined Cases                 price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni v Ministry of Finance                     specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle to
and Cispadana Costruzioni v Ministry of Finance) (2), is the                 the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
provision in Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 23.12.1998
introducing the flat-rate charge retrospectively (in amounts            (2) Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining
varying between ITL 750 000 and ITL 90 000 according to                      the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the
the type of company), for the entry in the register of companies,            validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an ad
pursuant to the Civil Code, of company instruments other                     hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically so
than the constituent instrument compatible with Article 10 of                that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold in
that directive and with the interpretation of it by the Court of             advance, represent an obstacle to the application of Article
Justice (Ponente Carni), given that:                                         30(4) of Directive 93/37?


title: Action brought on 6 March 1995 by Syndicat Français de L'Express International (SFEI), DHL International, SERCIVE CRIE and MAY COURIER against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-77/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 137/29
Action brought on 6 March 1995 by Syndicat Fran^ais de               certain activities to which objection was taken in the
L'Express International ( SFEI ), DHL International,                 complaint.
SERCIVE CRIE and MAY COURIER against the
          Commission of the European Communities                     The applicants maintain that, by rejecting their complaint,
                        ( Case T-77/95 )                             the Commission infringed Articles 86 and 190 of the EC
                          ( 95/C 137/67 )
                                                                     Treaty and also the principles of proper administration and
                                                                     non-discrimination. They also consider that the contested
                                                                     decision is vitiated by misuse of powers and manifest errors
                                                                     of assessment of the Community interest.
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1995 by
Syndicat Fran^ais de PExpress International ( SFEI ), DHL
International, SERVICE CRIE and MAY COURIER,                         Action brought on 9 March 1995 by Interhotel, Sociedade
established in France, represented by Eric Morgan de                 Internacional de Hoteis, SARL, against the Commission of
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the                                   the European Communities
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in                                        ( Case T-81/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue                                            ( 95/C 137/68 )
Guillaume .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the Commission's decision SG(94)D/19144 of                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
     30 December 1994 , and                                          Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 1995 by
                                                                     Interhotel, Sociedade Internacional de Hoteis, SARL, whose
                                                                     registered office is in Lisbon, Rua Castilho, No 50, 5th floor,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            represented by Dr Jose Miguel Alarcao Judice, of the Lisbon
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                     of Dr Victor Gillen, Avocat, 13 Rue Aldringen.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicants point out that they lodged with the
Commission a complaint against the French Post Office and            — annul the Commission's decision of 28 December
the French State with a view to obtaining a finding of                     1994,
infringement of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty in the
context of the market in international rapid delivery
services . In their complaint the applicants maintained that as      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
a result of State measures the French Post Office was
supplying the Societe Frangaise de Messagerie                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Internationale ( SFMI ), a company dependent on the Post
Office, with logistical and commercial assistance which had          The action challenging the legality of the Commission's
enabled it immediately to penetrate, from the market in              decision is well founded, first, on the ground of breach of the
basic postal services in which the Post Office holds a               general principles of law, such as stability, legal certainty
statutory monopoly, the related market in international              and the protection of legitimate expectations and, secondly,
rapid delivery services and, in some three years, to acquire         on the ground of the inadequate statement of the reasons on
the first place in that market at the expense of private             which it is based, entailing a breach of the applicant's
undertakings which were there before it.                             acquired rights .
The applicants state that the Commission decided to reject           ( a ) The applicant points out in the first place that, in the
their complaint on the grounds, first, that the taking into                 factual and legal context which must be considered for
account of the Community interest justified not initiating an               the purposes of a correct appraisal of its action and of
investigation under Article 86 into the facts alleged and,                  the responsibilities demanded of it, its conduct of the
secondly, that the decision not to oppose a concentration                   operation and the Commission's own assessment show
between certain postal authorities and the undertaking TNT                  that the irreproachable way in which the rules in force
had shown that the operation envisaged, in the postal sector                and , as soon as they were known, the applicable
and with at least one of the participants against whom the                  instructions were at all times complied with is not open
complaint was directed , would have made it possible to                     to question . This is true of all the alterations alleged by
mitigate or indeed eliminate some of the anti-competitive                   the Commission and of all the expenditure it regards as
conduct for which the French Post Office and the SFMI                       ineligible, which means that that expenditure will have
could have been responsible, precisely in the context of                    to be regarded as properly effected and accepted . A


title: Case T-9/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/25

      Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM
      (Case T-9/14)
      (2014/C 71/47)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Just crunch it …’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 716 711

         Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1922/2012-1

         Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-57/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/18

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-57/07)
   (2007/C 95/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1), or in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 8 February 1996 in Case C-166/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello, Salerno): Pezzullo Molini Pastifici Mangimifici SpA against Ministero delle Finanze (Inward processing arrangements - National legislation providing for default interest on agricultural levies and VAT for the period between temporary and definitive importation)

text:
 No C 95/2             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 3 . 96
Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7'/EEC of 19 December               the species concerned is a species of naturally occurring
 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of                birds in the wild state in the European territory of the
 equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                    Member States to which the Treaty applies — subject to
security must be interpreted as meaning that a national                    the option to derogate provided for by Article 9.
statutory scheme, such as that established by the IOAW,
 which provides for a benefit designed to guarantee                  2 . Directive 79/409/EEC is not applicable to specimens of
 beneficiaries income at the level of the social minimum,                  birds born and reared in captivity.
 irrespective as to whether the claimant has any resources but
subject to conditions relating to his previous employment
and age, does not involve discrimination on grounds of sex           3 . Directive 79/409/EEC requires each Member State to
even if it is established that a much greater number of men               ensure the protection of a species of bird naturally
 than women find in that scheme a way of avoiding the                     occurring in the wild state in the European territory of
means test which, in contrast, has to be satisfied in the case            the Member States to which the Treaty applies, even if
of another scheme, such as that established by the RWW,                   the natural habitat of the species in question does not
which, albeit providing for a benefit of the same type, is less           occur in the territory of the Member State concerned.
favourable, since the national legislature was reasonably
entitled to consider that the scheme in question was                 (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
necessary in order to attain a social policy aim unrelated to
any discrimination on grounds of sex.
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 February 1996
                                                                    in Case C-166/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the Corte d'Appello, Salerno ): Pezzullo Molini Pastifici
                        (Third Chamber )                                 Mangimifici SpA against Ministero delle Finanze ( l )
                      of 8 February 1996                             (Inward processing arrangements — National legislation
in Case C-149/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from          providing for default interest on agricultural levies and
the Tribunale de Grande Instance, Caen ): Criminal                   VAT for the period between temporary and definitive
             proceedings against Didier Vergy ( 1 )                                            importation)
 (Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds —                                     ( 96/C 95/04 )
Prohibition of sale — Specimen born and reared in
                              captivity)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                           ( 96/C 95/03 )
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: French)                           published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        In Case C- 166/94 — reference by the Corte d'Appello
         published in the European Court Reports)                   ( Court of Appeal ), Salerno, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                    proceedings pending before that court between Pezzullo
                                                                    Molini Pastifici Mangimifici SpA and Ministero delle
In Case C-149/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177         Finanze on the interpretation of Articles 9 , 12, 13 , 30 and 38
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale de Grande Instance              of the EC Treaty and Article 18 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
( Regional Court), Caen ( France ), for a preliminary ruling in     ( EEC ) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against          organization of the market in cereals ( OJ No L 281 , 1975 ,
Didier Vergy — on the interpretation of Council Directive           p. 1 ) and Article 16 of Council Directive 69/73/EEC of
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild              4 March 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid
birds ( OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p. 1 ) — the Court (Third              down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect
Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet, President of the         of inward processing ( OJ English Special Edition 1969 ( I ),
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann                   p. 75 ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of J. -P.
( Rapporteur ), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H.           Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
von Holstein, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G:
judgment on 8 February 1 996 , the operative part of which is       Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
as follows :                                                        judgment on 8 February 1996, the operative part of which is
                                                                    as follows :
1 . Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
     conservation ofwild birds requires the Member States to        1 . Council Directive 69/73/EEC of 4 March 1969 on the
     prohibit trade in specimens belonging to a species ofbird            harmonization of provisions laid down by law,
     which is not listed in the Annexes thereto — in so far as            regulation or administrative action in respect of inward
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96         I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/3
     processing, as in force at the material time, allowed a          G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. L.
     Member State to provide that, in the case of release for         Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,
     home use in the Community ofgoods previously subject             Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     to inward processing arrangements, the agricultural levy         Registrar, has given a judgment in which it ruled that:
     payable is to bear default interest for the period between
     temporary importation and definitive importation.
                                                                      1 . Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no
                                                                            factor of such a kind as to affect the validity either of
2 . Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              Article 4 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     harmonization ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating                  No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed rules
     to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                       for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep
     tax: uniform basis of assessment, precludes a Member                   and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2661 /80, as
     State from requiring default interest to be charged on the             amended by Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     VAT payable in the event of declaration for home use in                No 1922/92 of 13 ]uly 1992 amending Regulation
     the Community of goods which were earlier subject to                   (EEC) No 1633/84, cited above, and determining the
     inward processing arrangements for the period between                  conditions for the reimbursement of the clawback
     temporary importation and definitive importation.                      following the judgment of the Court ofJustice in Joined
                                                                            Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90, or of Article 2 of
(') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1922/92 .
                                                                      2 . The requirement of proof laid down in Article 4 (1 ) of
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1 633/84, cited above, as amended
                                                                            by Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1 922/92, cited
                                                                            above, and in Article 2 of the latter Regulation, is to be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        interpreted as meaning that traders are required to
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                   supply proof to the satisfaction of the competent United
                                                                            Kingdom authorities, in accordance with national law
                      of 8 February 1996                                    and within the period prescribed by Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-2 12/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  No 1 922/92, of the amount of the premium actually
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): FMC                    granted for products subject to clawback, provided that
pic and Others v. Intervention Board for Agricultural                       the applicable national rules do not affect the scope or
  Produce, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ( 1 )                effectiveness of Community law.
(Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and
goatmeat — Clawback — Method ofcalculation — Validity                 3 . As regards claims for repayment of clawback unduly
      — Proof — Reimbursement of undue payments)                            paid prior to 10 March 1992, paragraph 30 of the
                            ( 96/C 95/05 )                                  judgment in Lomas and Others (Joined Cases C-38/90
                                                                            and C-151 /90) is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                            traders or those entitled through them who prior to that
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            date initiated proceedings or made an equivalent
                                                                            complaint under the applicable national law may rely on
In Case C-2 12/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                the invalidity of Article 4 (1 ) and (2) of Regulation No
of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen 's                     (EEC) No 1633/84, cited above, as from the date of its
Bench Division for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  entry into force, subject to the application, within the
pending before that court between FMC pic, FMC ( Meat)                      limits set by Community law, of any national rules
Ltd, DT Duggins Ltd, Marshall ( Lamberhurst) Ltd,                           limiting the period prior to the submission of a claim in
Montelupo Ltd and North Devon Meat Ltd and                                  respect ofwhich repayment ofa sum unduly paid may be
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce , Ministry of                   obtained.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the validity and
interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
( EEC ) No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed                4 . With regard to matters not governed by Article 2 of
rules for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep                 Regulation (EEC) No 1922/92, cited above, national
and repealing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2661 /80 ( OJ No L 154 ,                courts called upon to give judgment on a claim for
1984, p. 27 ), as amended by Article 1 of Commission                        reimbursement of clawback unduly charged must apply
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1922/92 of 13 July 1992 amending                      their national law, provided the detailed rules laid down
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1633/84, cited above, and                             therein are not less favourable than those governing
determining the conditions for the reimbursement of the                     similar domestic actions and are not so framed as to
clawback following the judgment of the Court of Justice in                  render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the
Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90 ( OJ No L 195 , 1992 ,                   exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal
p. 10 ), the validity and interpretation of Article 2 of                    system .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1922/92, cited above, and the
interpretation of paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Court           f 1 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
of Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas and
Others ( 1992 ) ECR 1-1781 , the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,


title: Case C-366/15: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2015 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2015 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-366/15) (1)

   (2016/C 078/17)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/49

         Action brought on 6 February 2004 by Emma Bonino and seven other applicants against European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case T-40/04)
   (2004/C 94/133)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 February 2004 by Emma Bonino and Others, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding;

               —

               Make an appropriate order as to costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In these proceedings, the act whose annulment is sought is the same as in Cases T-13/04 Donde and Others v European Parliament and Council and T-17/04 National Front and Others v European Parliament and Council; the pleas and main arguments are similar to those put forward in those cases.
   The applicants also claim that the contested regulation infringes the EC Treaty in that it provides that the European Parliament is to combine the powers of joint legislature and executor.
   They further claim that there has been a breach of the principle of democracy, in that the applicants are in a situation such that, although sitting in the European Parliament follow free democratic elections, they are precluded from financing from the general budget of the Union because they are not recognised as a political party at European level.


title: Appeal by Konstantinos Dimitriadis against the judgment delivered on 28 February 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-294/94 K. Dimitriadis v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Case C-140/96 P)

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 210/5
Appeal by Konstantinos Dimitriadis against the judgment               Moreover, the Court of First Instance, in examining in detail
delivered on 28 February 1996 by the Court of First Instance          the reasoning of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
of the European Communities in Case T-294/94 K.                       1 July 1994, which constituted the subject-matter of the
Dimitriadis v. Court of Auditors of the European                      action, infringed the appellant's rights of defence because it
                        Communities ( 1 )                             did not order evidence to the adduced and did not give him
                      ( Case C-140/96 P)                              the opportunity of proving the truth of his claims .
                         ( 96/C 210/09 )                              Lastly, the appellant maintains that the grounds given for
                                                                      the decision of the Court of First Instance as to costs are
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 February               inadequate .
1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-294/94 between K. Dimitriadis and               (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was
lodged on 21 April 1996 by Konstantinos Dimitriadis,
formerly an official of the Court of Auditors of
the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Marcos Papazisis of the Thessaloniki Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the appellant's          Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the
address, 4A boulevard G. -D. Charlotte , L-1330 .                      European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-165 /96
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should :                                         ( 96/C 210/ 10
— order the Registrar of the Court of First Instance to join          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
    to the pleadings in this appeal the minutes of the oral           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    procedure of 8 February 1996 , with the pleadings of the          14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European
    parties ' lawyers, and the transcript of the testimony of         Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
    the witness Mr F. before the Fifth Chamber of the Court           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    of First Instance in Case T-326/94 Dimitriadis v . Court          at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
    of Auditors on 11 January 1 996 ,                                 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal             The applicant claims that the Court should :
    of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ) of
    28 February 1 996 in Case T-294/94 Dimitriadis v . Court        - — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
    of Auditors ,                                                         regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                          comply with Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of
— admit the appeal and examine it as to the merits,                       22 July 1991 adapting to technical progress for the
                                                                           14th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
— order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and                 approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
     of the action brought before the Court of First                      provisions relating to the classification, packaging and
     Instance .                                                           labelling of dangerous substances ('), the Portuguese
                                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Article 2 of Directive 91 /410/EEC,
The appellant puts forward eight grounds of appeal relating           — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
to procedural defects and infringements of Community                       Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
law.                                                                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                           same provisions ,
In particular he maintains that the Court of First Instance
did not take account of the pleas put forward in the course           — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
of the oral procedure , because they could not be put forward
earlier as part of the written procedure, that the judgment is        Pleas in law and main arguments
not consistent with the relevant case-law and that the Court ,
of First Instance wrongly held that there was no need for it to       The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
hear evidence to establish the truth of certain of the                paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires Member
appellant's claims .                                                  States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose
                                                                      directives addressed to them into their domestic law before
He also maintains that the Court of First Instance wrongly            the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period
held that it was justified in not examining certain witnesses         expired on 1 August 1992 without Portugal having adopted
whom the appellant wished to call but that it was justified,          the necessary provisions .
on behalf of the appointing authority, in examining former
complaints to the detriment of the appellant, whereas it              (') OJ No L 228 , 17 . 8 . 1991 , p . 67.
should have confined itself to establishing the facts of the
case and where responsibility for the present dispute lay.


title: Case T-5/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Sharif v Council

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/46

         Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Sharif v Council
   (Case T-5/17)
   (2017/C 053/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC and J. Pobjoy, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/1897 of 27 October 2016 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 293, p. 36, hereafter the ‘Contested Decision’) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1893 of 27 October 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 293, p. 25, hereafter the ‘Contested Regulation’) insofar as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Article 28(2)(a) of the Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14) and Article 15(l a)(a) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the Applicant, and the consequential annulment, insofar as they apply to the Applicant, of the Contested Decision and Contested Regulation;

               —

               indemnify the applicant, pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU, for the damages arising from the non-contractual liability of the EU for the unlawful acts of the Council; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 15 of Regulation No 36/2012 was satisfied.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of property, reputation and business. The impact of the Contested Measures on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to his property, and to his reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

               3.

               Third plea in law, if, contrary to the applicant’s principal case, the designation criterion is to be interpreted to capture any leading businessperson in Syria, irrespective of whether that businessperson has any association or connection with the Syrian regime, and irrespective of whether that individual benefits from or supports the Syrian regime, the applicant seeks a declaration that Article 28(2)(a) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 15(1a)(a) of Regulation No 36/2012 are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant on the basis that the designation criterion is disproportionate to the otherwise legitimate objectives of those texts.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005 in Case T-272/02, Comune di Napoli v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Construction of an underground rail line in Naples (Italy) — Conclusion of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Legitimate expectations — Fairness — Statement of reasons)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 May 2005
   in Case T-272/02, Comune di Napoli v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Construction of an underground rail line in Naples (Italy) - Conclusion of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Legitimate expectations - Fairness - Statement of reasons)
   (2005/C 193/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-272/02: Comune di Napoli (Italy), represented by M. Merola, C. Tesauro, G. Tarallo and E. Barone, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and A. Aresu, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission notified in a letter of 11 June 2002 to the Italian Ministry of Finance concluding the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Assistance No 850503066) and the implied rejection of an application for correction of the account relating to other financial assistance granted from the ERDF (Assistance No 850503067) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in the case of Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (Case C-143/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 180/25
3 . Can the recipient of a credit note, in the circumstances          Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal
     set out in Question 2, rely on Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the      Customs Office ) Mannheim on the following question :
     Sixth Directive if the value-added tax mentioned in the
     credit note is claimed from him as a tax debt to the             How is subheading 0904 20 of the Common Customs Tariff
     extent of the difference between the tax mentioned and           — combined nomenclature 1989 and 1990 — to be
     the tax owed by reason of taxable transactions ?                 interpreted ? Does the term 'sonst zerkleinert' used therein
                                                                      signify merely a fineness similar to the 'gemahlen' (crushed )
(!) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                       product, or does it also cover a product cut into pieces, such
                                                                      as a product cut into pieces measuring between 4 and
                                                                      8 mm ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
the case of Hauptzollamt Miinchen v. Wacker Werke                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail
                        GmbH & Co . KG                                de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in
                                                                          the case of Office National des Pensions v. Cirotti
                         ( Case C-142/96 )
                                                                                Case C- 1 44/96 )
                           ( 96/C 180/55 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/57)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of            European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
7 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on             Travail de Bruxelles ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) of
29 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                25 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Hauptzollamt Miinchen ( Principal Customs Office,                     3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office
Munich ) v . Wacker Werke GmbH & Co . KG on the                       National des Pensions ( National Pensions Office ) v. Cirotti
following questions:                                                  on the following question :
1 . Is the second alternative provided for in the second              Must     Articles     46     and   51     of   Regulation    ( EEC )
     subparagraph of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation           No 1408/71 (*) be interpreted as applying in the event of an
     ( EEC ) No 2473/86 of 24 July 1986 on outward                    invalidity benefit, calculated under the legislation of one
     processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 212 , 1986 ,            Member State, overlapping with an old-age benefit,
     p . 1 ) to be interpreted as meaning that a method of            calculated under the legislation of another Member State,
     determining processing costs is reasonable only if the           that grants a person a share of the employed person's
     resulting value of the temporary export goods                    old-age benefit payable to his or her spouse from whom that
     corresponds approximately to the purchase price paid             person is living apart, even if this would give migrant
     by the holder of an outward processing authorization or          workers an advantage over non-migrant workers, when
     to the production costs ?                                        Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Regulation provides for equal treatment
                                                                      of all nationals of the Member States ?
2 . If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can
     reference be made to the purchase price for the inputs           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
     inclusive of uplifts paid by the processor to the holder of
     an outward processing authorization in determining the
     processing costs, and does that apply equally where
     there is a tariff anomaly resulting in a higher rate of duty
     for the unprocessed goods than for the compensating              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     products ?                                                       Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       11 April 1996 in the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/58 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v.                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                    Hauptzollamt Mannheim                             Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
                         ( Case C-143/96 )                            Civil Section ) of 11 April 1996 which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 7 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
                            ( 96/C 180/56                             the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and Amministrazione delle
                                                                      Finanze on the same questions as in Joined Cases C-47/95
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                and Others ( 1 ).
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March               (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Leonhard


title: Case C-339/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luc Vanderborght, other party: Verbond der Vlaamse Tandartsen (VZW)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luc Vanderborght, other party: Verbond der Vlaamse Tandartsen (VZW)
   (Case C-339/15)
   (2015/C 311/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant: Luc Vanderborght

      Other party: Verbond der Vlaamse Tandartsen (VZW)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be interpreted as precluding a national law — such as Article 1 of the Belgian Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters — which prohibits, in absolute terms, any advertising, by anyone, relating to oral or dental care?

               2.

               Is a prohibition on advertising in respect of oral and dental care to be regarded as a ‘rule relating to the health and safety aspects of products’ within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2005/29/EC …

               3.

               Should Directive 2005/29/EC … be interpreted as precluding a national provision — such as Article 8d of the Royal Decree of 1 June 1934 laying down rules for the practice of dentistry — which describes in detail the requirements in terms of discreetness to be met by a sign, intended for the public, at a dental practice?

               4.

               Should Directive 2000/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market be interpreted as precluding a national law — such as Article 1 of the Belgian Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters — which prohibits, in absolute terms, any advertising, by anyone, relating to oral or dental care, including a prohibition on commercial advertising by electronic means (website)?

               5.

               How should the term ‘information society services’, as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC by reference to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, (3) as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, (4) be interpreted?

               6.

               Should Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, in order to protect public health, a complete ban is imposed on advertising in respect of dental care?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (2)  Directive on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

      (4)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).


title: Case C-438/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, 9ème Chambre, by judgment of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Mobistar SA against Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications, joined parties, Belgacom Mobile SA and Base SA

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, 9ème Chambre, by judgment of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Mobistar SA against Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications, joined parties, Belgacom Mobile SA and Base SA
   (Case C-438/04)
   (2005/C 6/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, 9ème Chambre, (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Ninth Chamber) (Belgium) of 14 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 19 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mobistar SA against Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunications, joined parties, Belgacom Mobile SA and Base SA on the following questions:
   With regard to the number portability facility provided for in Article 30 of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) (Universal Service Directive):

               1.

               Does Article 30(2) of the Universal Service Directive, which provides that national regulatory authorities are to ensure that pricing for interconnection related to the provision of number portability is cost-oriented, refer only to costs related to traffic to the ported number, or does it also refer to tariffs of costs incurred by operators in executing requests for number porting?

               2.

               If Article 30(2) of the directive refers only to interconnection costs related to traffic to the ported number, must it be interpreted:

                           (a)

                           as leaving operators free to negotiate the commercial conditions for the facility and as prohibiting Member States from imposing ex ante commercial conditions on undertakings obliged to provide the number portability facility in respect of the services provided in relation to the execution of a request for porting?

                           (b)

                           as not prohibiting Member States from imposing ex ante commercial conditions in respect of that facility on operators which have been designated as having significant market power in a particular market?

               3.

               If Article 30(2) of the directive must be interpreted as imposing on all operators the obligation of cost orientation in respect of the costs of number porting, must it be interpreted as precluding:

                           (a)

                           a national regulatory measure imposing a specific method of calculation for the calculation of the costs in question?

                           (b)

                           a national measure which fixes ex ante the allocation of the costs between the operators?

                           (c)

                           a national measure which empowers the national regulatory authority to fix ex ante for all operators and for a given period the maximum amount of the charges which the donor operator may claim from the recipient operator?

                           (d)

                           a national measure which grants to the donor operator the right to apply the tariff set by the national regulatory authority, relieving that operator of the obligation to prove that the tariff which it applies is oriented to its own costs?

         With regard to the right of appeal provided for by Article 4 of Directive 2002/21/EC (2) (Framework Directive):
   Must Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive be interpreted as meaning that the authority designated to hear and determine appeals must be able to have at its disposal all the information necessary for the merits of the case to be duly taken into account, including the confidential information on the basis of which the national regulatory authority adopted the decision which is the subject-matter of the appeal?

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002 p. 51).

      (2)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002 p. 33).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-228/00: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 83/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             principally as a fuel, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                          Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                                                                                supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and
                        of 13 February 2003                                         out of the European Community;
in Case C-228/00: Commission of the European Communi-                        2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery
or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B
to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a
             fuel or other means to generate energy)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (2003/C 83/01)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 6 February 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-245/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Stichting ter Exploitatie
                                                                             van Naburige Rechten (SENA) v Nederlandse Omroep
In Case C-228/00, Commission of the European Communities                                                Stichting (NOS) (1)
(Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
(Agent: T. Jürgensen, assisted by D. Sellner): Application for a
declaration that by raising unjustified objections against certain           (Directive 92/100/EEC — Rental right and lending right
shipments of waste to other Member States to be used                         and certain rights related to copyright in the field of
principally as a fuel the Federal Republic of Germany has failed             intellectual property — Article 8(2) — Broadcasting and
to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council                  communication to the public — Equitable remuneration)
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into                                                (2003/C 83/02)
and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
the     Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans                      (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in
which it:
1.    Declares that by raising unjustified objections to certain             In Case C-245/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      shipments of waste to other Member States to be used                   EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber of the Tribunal de Travail, Mons, by judgment of that court of 21 April 1998, in the case of Georges Platbrood v. Office National des Pensions (ONP) (Case C-161/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/23
     subsequently amended, and in particular Articles 3(1),         presumption in respect of the war years if the person
     5(3) and 6(2) thereof, valid, in the light of Article 40       concerned can claim a pension under a foreign scheme for
     and Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty?                        those periods of employment) constitute a clause for
                                                                    reduction, suspension or withdrawal declared inapplicable
(1) OJ L 170, 28.6.1997, p. 3.                                      by the new provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92?
(2) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                        amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes¼ (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
of the Tribunal de Travail, Mons, by judgment of that
court of 21 April 1998, in the case of Georges Platbrood            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
           v. Office National des Pensions (ONP)                    Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of
                       (Case C-161/98)                              13 March 1998 in proceedings concerning an
                                                                       administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann
                         (98/C 209/45)
                                                                                (Case C-162/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Third
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Tribunal de Travail (Labour Tribunal),
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Mons, of 21 April 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 13 March
Registry on 27 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                    1998, received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1998, for
case of Georges Platbrood v. Office National des Pensions
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
(ONP), on the following questions:
                                                                    administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann,
                                                                    on the following question (1):
Do the new provisions in Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
requiere Belgium to grant a beneficiary the right to a              Does the exemption from charges afforded to motor
retirement pension calculated on the basis of a work                vehicles belonging to road maintenance and operation
record comprising in part years in the course of which              services' apply only to vehicles belonging to regional and/
presumed or notional contributions must be taken into               or local authorities, or does it also apply to vehicles
account Ð unless the person concerned can claim a                   belonging to private contractors acting on behalf of such
pension under a foreign scheme for those periods of                 authorities?
employment (principle that there is a legal presumption in
respect of the war years, as laid down by Article 32(1) of          In the latter case:
the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 establishing
general rules for the retirement and survival pension               does the exemption from charges apply only in respect of
scheme for employees prior to its repeal by the Royal               journeys undertaken for that purpose, or does it apply
Decree of 14 December 1990 Ð although it remains                    generally to all journeys made using such vehicles, thus
applicable to retirement pensions which became payable              including those undertaken on business relating to the
for the first time before 1 January 1991) in circumstances          contractor's manufacturing operations?
where, specifically, the person concerned has been
awarded a retirement pension payable by Germany on the              (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Agreement
basis of actual contributions corresponding to the                      of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
presumed or notional contributions which may be taken                   certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                        [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
into account under the Belgian legislation?
In other words, must the new provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 1248/92 (1) be interpreted as authorising
overlapping, without reduction, suspension or withdrawal
of a retirement pension awarded to a Belgian, payable by            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Seventh
Belgium and calculated on the basis of presumed or                  Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel, Arlon, by
notional contributions by virtue of the principle that there        judgment of that court of 2 April 1998 in the case of
is a legal presumption in respect of the war years, as laid         MinisteÁre Public against AndreÂ Mazzoleni Ð parties
down by Article 32(1) of the Royal Decree of 21 December            claiming damages: Eric Guillaume, Michel Pedon,
1967 (subject to the reservation contained in that                  Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin, JeÂrôme Canini;
provision whereby the person concerned may not,                      liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL
however, claim a pension under a foreign scheme for those                                    (Case C-165/98)
periods of employment) with the benefit of a retirement
pension payable by Germany calculated on the basis of                                         (98/C 209/47)
actual contributions covering the same period or, on the
contrary, might the exception provided for by Article 32(1)         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (no legal                   European Communities by judgment of the Seventh