title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2003 In Joined Cases C-307/00 to C-311/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Oliehandel Koeweit BV (C-307/00), Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant NV, Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH (C-308/00), PPG Industries Fiber Glass BV (C-309/00), Stork Veco BV (C-310/00), Sturing Afvalverwĳdering Noord-Brabant NV, Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland NV, Mineralplus Gesellschaft für Mineralstoffaufbereitung und Verwertung mbH, formerly UTR Umwelt GmbH (C-311/00) and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 concerning the shipment of waste — Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils — Classification — Waste disposal and recovery operations — Objections to shipments — Legal basis — Illegal shipments)

text:
26.4.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 101/11
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
                                                                             L 243, p. 31) and Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June
                                                                             1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December
                                                                             1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), and on the validity of
                                                                             Article 4(3)(b)(i) of Regulation No 259/93, the Court (Fifth
                       of 27 February 2003                                   Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the
                                                                             President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                                                                             P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
                                                                             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 27 February
In Joined Cases C-307/00 to C-311/00 (Reference for a
                                                                             2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Oliehandel
Koeweit BV (C-307/00), Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant
NV, Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs- und Siche-
rungsgesellschaft mbH (C-308/00), PPG Industries Fiber
Glass BV (C-309/00), Stork Veco BV (C-310/00), Sturing                       1.    Recovery operations involving the recycling or reclamation of
Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant NV, Afvalverbranding                               metals and metal compounds or the recycling or reclamation of
Zuid Nederland NV, Mineralplus Gesellschaft für Mine-                              other inorganic materials, as referred to in operations R4 and
ralstoffaufbereitung und Verwertung mbH, formerly UTR                              R5, respectively, of Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/
Umwelt GmbH (C-311/00) and Minister van Volks-                                     EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
  huisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer ( 1)                           Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
                                                                                Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, may also cover the re-
                                                                                use referred to in Article 3(1)(b)(i) of that directive. Those
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Environment —                          operations do not necessarily imply that the substance in
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste — Regulation (EEC)                                   question undergoes processing, can be used several times or can
No 259/93 concerning the shipment of waste — Directive                             subsequently be reclaimed.
75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils — Classification
— Waste disposal and recovery operations — Objections to
        shipments — Legal basis — Illegal shipments)
                                                                             2.    A waste treatment operation may not be classified simul-
                                                                                taneously as both disposal and recovery within the meaning of
                          (2003/C 101/19)                                          Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 and by
                                                                                Decision 96/350. Where an operation, having regard solely to
                                                                                its wording, may a priori be covered by a disposal operation set
                   (Language of procedure: Dutch)                                  out in Annex IIA to that directive or a recovery operation
                                                                                referred to in Annex IIB to that directive, it must be determined
                                                                                on a case-by-case basis whether the main objective of the
                                                                                operation in question is that the waste should serve a useful
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                purpose, by replacing the use of other materials which would
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                have had to be used to fulfil that function, and in such a case
                                                                                to uphold the classification as recovery.
In Joined Cases C-307/00 to C-311/00: References to the                      3.    The classification chosen by the competent authorities of the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands)                     Member State of destination as regards a given waste treatment
for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before that                     operation does not prevail over the classification chosen by the
court between Oliehandel Koeweit BV (C-307/00), Slib-                              competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch, any
verwerking Noord-Brabant NV, Glückauf Sondershausen                                more than the classification chosen by the latter prevails over
Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH (C-308/00),                           that chosen by the competent authorities of the Member State
PPG Industries Fiber Glass BV (C-309/00), Stork Veco BV                            of destination.
(C-310/00), Sturing Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant NV,
Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland NV, Mineralplus Gesellschaft
für Mineralstoffaufbereitung und Verwertung mbH, formerly
UTR Umwelt GmbH (C-311/00) and Minister van Volkshuis-                       4.    It follows from the system put in place by Council Regulation
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, on the                              (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of                            control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments                        European Community that, when the competent authority of
of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ                        the Member State of dispatch forms the view that the purpose
1993 L 30, p. 1), Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July                          of a waste shipment has been incorrectly classified as recovery
1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council                        in the notification, that authority must base its objection to the
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32)                        shipment on the ground of that error in classification, without
and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996                                reference to a particular provision of that regulation which, such
(OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), Council Directive 96/59/EC of                              as Article 4(3)(b)(i) in particular, defines the objections which
16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated                               Member States may make to shipments of waste for disposal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/12                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             26.4.2003
5.    Having regard to Article 8(2)(b) of Council Directive 75/439/           The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale di Biella
      EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended           by order of 18 October 2001 is inadmissible.
      by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, the
      shipment of waste oils containing more than 50 ppm of PCB
      for use as a fuel constitutes illegal traffic in waste within the       (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6 April 2002.
      meaning of Article 26(1)(e) of Regulation No 259/93, to
      which the competent authority is required to object on the
      ground solely of that illegality, without reference to any of the
      specific provisions of that regulation setting out the objections
      which Member States may raise to waste shipments.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 December 2002
                                                                              in Case C-461/01 P: Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas v
                                                                                Council of the European Union ( 1)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                       (Appeal — State aid — Decision adopted on the basis of the
                                                                              third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                              the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC — Application
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                     for annulment — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible
                                                                                and in part manifestly unfounded)
                        of 25 February 2003                                                             (2003/C 101/21)
in Case C-445/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
the Tribunale di Biella): Roberto Simoncello, Piera Boerio
              v Direzione Provinciale di Lavoro (1)                           (Provisional translation; the final translation will be published in the
                                                                                European Court Reports)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom of movement for
workers — Public undertaking — Requirements concerning
               hiring of workers — Inadmissibility)                           In Case C-461/01 P, Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas,
                                                                              residing in Larissa (Greece), (lawyer: A. Tessas) — appeal
                                                                              against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2003/C 101/20)                                    Communities (Fourth Chamber Extended Composition) of
                                                                              11 September 2001 in Case T-270/99 Tessa and Tessas v
                                                                              Council [2001] ECR II-2401, and seeking the annulment of
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                          that order, the other parties to the proceedings being: the
                                                                              Council of the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and
                                                                              D. Zahariou), and the Hellenic Republic, (Agents: I. Chalkias
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        and P. Mylonopoulos), — the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamb-
                    in the European Court Reports)                            er), composed of M. Timmermans, (Judge-Rapporteur), Presi-
                                                                              dent of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges;
                                                                              Advocate General F.G. Jacobs; Registrar: R. Grass, made an
                                                                              order on 5 December 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                              follows:
In Case C-445/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunale di Biella (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Roberto                  1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Simoncello, Piera Boerio and Direzione Provinciale di Lavoro
— on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty                2.    Ms Tessa and Mr Tessas will bear their own costs and pay
(now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), and                               those of the Council. The Hellenic Republic will bear its own
Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) — the                               costs.
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                         (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 February
2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Inspection powers of the Commission — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Inspection powers of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)
   2013/C 304/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany); DB Mobility Logistics AG (Berlin); DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); DB Netz AG (Frankfurt-am-Main); DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany); DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (Mainz); Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) (Bodenheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, O. Mross and J. Brückner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially, in Cases T-289/11 and T-290/11, by: M. Muñoz Pérez, then, in Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, by: S. Centeno Huerta, abogados del Estado); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents); and EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X.A. Lewis, M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011)1774 of 14 March 2011, C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011 ordering Deutsche Bahn AG and all its subsidiaries, to submit to inspections under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-461/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014  — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission (State aid — Airport charges — Lübeck Airport — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU — Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission
   (Case T-461/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Airport charges - Lübeck Airport - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU - Article 107(1) TFEU - Manifest error of assessment - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))
   2014/C 372/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hansestadt Lübeck (Germany) successor in title to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, J. Dammann de Chapto and T. Becker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule of charges of Lübeck airport (Germany) adopted in 2006.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-317/00: Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/37
—     Infringement of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff               —     failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      Regulations. The applicant was entitled to the daily                     officials;
      subsistence allowance laid down by that provision, since
      she was required to change her place of residence to               —     infringement of Community rules on free movement for
      Luxembourg for the sole purpose of being able to carry                   workers;
      out the work for which she was employed, whereas the
      centre of her interests remained in Portugal.                      —     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA
Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd Feenstra                       against Commission of the European Communities
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-317/00)
                         (Case T-313/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/79)
                         (2000/C 355/78)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli
European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd                      SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar, Matteo
Feenstra, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-           Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                              Venice Bar, and Eduardo De Simone, of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      27 September 1999 grading the applicant in Grade A 7,              —     annul the contested decision in whole or in part in so far
      step 3;                                                                  as it concerns the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      sed, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         On 9 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          decision whereby it declared the acquisition of Elf Aquitaine
                                                                         S.A. by Totalfina compatible with the common market and
                                                                         with the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That
The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition             decision was subject to the compliance by Totalfina with a
COM/A/764, contests the appointing authority’s decision to               number of undertakings, including the undertaking to sell
grade him, on establishment, at Grade A 7, step 3.                       70 petrol stations located on the French motorway network,
                                                                         specifically set out in a table appended to the decision.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The present case has been brought against the decision of the
—     manifest error of assessment;                                      Commission of 13 September 2000 (SG (2000) D/106729)
                                                                         rejecting the plan submitted by Totalfina S.A., with the purpose
                                                                         of implementing the abovementioned decision of 9 February
—     infringement of Articles 31(2) and 32 of the Staff                 2000 Totalfina/Elf (COMP/M. 1628). That decision rejected
      Regulations;                                                       the plan put forward on account of the fact that two
                                                                         prospective purchasers, one of which was the applicant itself,
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;                     were not in a position to compete effectively against Totalfina.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/38               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
In support of its arguments, the applicant puts forward the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas in law:
—     Inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons.
                                                                         The contested decision of the Commission concerns a number
                                                                         of alleged cases of aid received by various undertakings in
—     Misuse of powers and infringement of Council Regulation
                                                                         connection with the establishment and operation of a CD
      (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control
                                                                         factory in Albrechts, Thuringia. In the decision the Com-
      of concentrations between undertakings (1).
                                                                         mission finds that part of that aid was misused. It states that
                                                                         that wrong use constitutes an abuse of aid, which is therefore
The applicants point out in that regard that the contested               incompatible with the EC Treaty. In Article 2 of the contested
decision relies on a number of statements of principle and of            decision the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to recover
fact which are arbitrary, or in any event unfounded. In                  the aid from more precisely specified recipients.
particular, the defendant appears to have confused the appli-
cation of the rules of competition with structural intervention
on the basis of economic policy which fall beyond its powers,
thus losing sight of the fact that the recent significant oil price      The applicant considers that it is directly and immediately
rises are in fact the result of factors altogether beyond the            concerned by the decision. On the basis of the German rules
control of undertakings.                                                 of national law, the contested decision is to be implemented
                                                                         by the applicant, in so far as undertakings established in
                                                                         Thuringia are concerned. Furthermore, the contested decision
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.                                                 largely concerns alleged aid distributed by the Thuringian
                                                                         authorities. Moreover, the order to recover the aid relates to
                                                                         undertakings which are indirectly owned by the applicant.
                                                                         The applicant complains that the Commission partly incor-
                                                                         rectly classified the measures in question as State aid. Moreover,
                                                                         the undertakings established in Thuringia were incorrectly
Action brought on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat Thüring-                  identified as recipients of aid for the purposes of recovery.
en against the Commission of the European Communities                    CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH received no benefit from
                                                                         State resources. The applicant’s other undertakings were also
                          (Case T-318/00)                                ultimately deprived of the finance as a result of fraudulent
                                                                         dealings. This applies to Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co.
                                                                         Beteiligungs KG, Pilz Albrechts GmbH, CDA Compact Disc
                         (2000/C 355/80)                                 Albrechts GmbH and hence finally also Logistik Center
                                                                         Albrechts GmbH. Consequently, the Commission could extend
                                                                         the instruction to recover the aid only to those undertakings
                   (Language of the case: German)                        which actually received a benefit.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               In this context the applicant puts forward the following pleas
European Communities on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat                     in law in particular:
Thüringen (State of Thuringia), represented by Dr Michael
Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Brussels.                                                                —     Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Errors in establishing the facts
—     annul the contested decision;
      in the alternative:                                                —     Defective statement of reasons
      —    annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far
           as aid to Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs             —     Infringement of the requirement of precision and the
           KG and Pilz Albrechts GmbH is thereby declared                      principle of proportionality
           incompatible with the common market;
      —    annul Articles 1(2) and 2(3) of the contested                 —     Unlawfulness of the instruction to recover the aid
           decision;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                —     Manifestly incorrect assessment of the individual elements
      pay the costs.                                                           of aid


title: Case C-448/04: Action brought on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/6

         Action brought on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-448/04)
   (2004/C 314/11)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 2 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 149 of 2.6.2001, p. 34.


title: Case T-453/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Klaes — Prior Community figurative mark Klaes — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)
      (Case T-453/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Klaes - Prior Community figurative mark Klaes - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2015/C 107/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, Germany) (represented initially by: J. Schneider, and subsequently by: S. Schweyer, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG and Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

                  3.

                  Orders Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-387/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Tomato processing sector — Aid to producer organisations — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Flat-rate correction)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-387/12) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Tomato processing sector - Aid to producer organisations - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Flat-rate correction))
   (2015/C 096/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Italy (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Bianchi, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of the Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20/10/12.


title: Case T-410/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Hoechst v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in sorbates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Calculation of the amount of the fines — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Principle non bis in idem — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Access to the file — Duration of the procedure)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Hoechst v Commission
   (Case T-410/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sorbates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Principle non bis in idem - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Access to the file - Duration of the procedure)
   (2008/C 197/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, then by M. Klusmann, V. Turner and M. Rüba, and finally by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by W. Mölls, O. Beynet and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by W. Mölls and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, so far as the applicant is concerned, of Commission Decision 2005/493/EC of 1 October 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Chisso Corporation, Daicel Chemical Industries Ltd, Hoechst AG, The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co. Ltd and Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry Ltd (Case No COMP/E 1/37.370 — Sorbates) (Summary in OJ 2005 L 182, p. 20), or, in the alternative, a reduction to an appropriate level of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Hoechst GmbH at EUR 74.25 million.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-136/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Japan Tobacco, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-128/06, Japan Tobacco, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Torrefacção Camelo

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/18

         Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Japan Tobacco, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-128/06, Japan Tobacco, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Torrefacção Camelo
   (Case C-136/08 P)
   (2008/C 209/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (represented by: A. Ortiz López, abogada, S. Ferrandis González, abogado and E. Ochoa Santamaría, abogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Torrefacção Camelo Lda

   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 30 January 2008 delivered in Case T-128/06 and deliver a judgment amending the judgment of the Court of First Instance and declaring it necessary to apply the prohibition contained in Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) to this case and, consequently, in considering the arguments submitted by Japan Tobacco, decide to refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 1 469 121;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation and, more specifically, Article 8(5) thereof. Despite the fact that the Court of First Instance recognised the reputation of the earlier mark, the similarity between the marks in question and the connection between the goods designated by the marks, it required actual, real and current evidence of harm to the earlier mark, whilst Article 8(5) requires a mere likelihood of harm to that mark, of unfair advantage being taken of its distinctive character or of detriment to it.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-345/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Continental Small Company Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Continental Small Company Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-345/11)
   2011/C 269/71
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Continental Small Company Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case F-3/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Frankin and Others v Commission (Officials — Obligation on the administration to provide assistance — Refusal — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Frankin and Others v Commission
   (Case F-3/06) (1)

   (Officials - Obligation on the administration to provide assistance - Refusal - Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium)
   (2007/C 42/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and Others (represented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the requests for assistance submitted by the applicants in connection with the transfer of their pension rights acquired in Belgium and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 33.


title: Case T-358/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2008 — PubliCare Marketing Communications v OHIM (Publicare) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Publicare — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Fortuitous event — Excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2008 — PubliCare Marketing Communications v OHIM (Publicare)
   (Case T-358/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Publicare - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Fortuitous event - Excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 158/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: PubliCare Marketing Communications (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: B. Mohr, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2007 (Case R-157/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of word mark Publicare as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders PubliCare Marketing Communications GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-175/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt against European Agency for Reconstruction

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/41
Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani against                    European Communities, manifest error of assessment and an
          Commission of the European Communities                           alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, the principle
                                                                           that officials should have reasonable career prospects, the
                                                                           principle that legitimate expectations should be protected and
                          (Case T-174/03)                                  of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
                          (2003/C 184/91)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                            against European Agency for Reconstruction
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani,
residing in Brussels, represented by Éric Boigelot, lawyer.                                          (Case T-175/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                         (2003/C 184/92)
—     annul the decision of 14 August 2002 of the authority                                    (Language of the case: French)
      empowered to conclude contracts of employment not to
      include the applicant's name on the list of officials and
      members of the temporary staff remunerated under
      research credits eligible for promotion/regrading in 2002,           An action against European Agency for Reconstruction was
      which was published in the Administrative Notices of                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      14 August 2002 (IA 70-2002);                                         Communities on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt, residing in
                                                                           Köllerbach (Germany), represented by Lothar Polanz, lawyer.
—     in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 August
      2002 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of employment of 16 August 2002 to promote or regrade
      to A4 officials and members of the temporary staff                   —     annul the dismissal of 25 February 2003 by the Director
      remunerated under research credits appearing in the list                   of the European Agency for Reconstruction;
      published in Administrative Notices of 14 August 2002
      (IA 71-2002);                                                              in the alternative
—     annul the implied rejection of the applicant's complaint,            —     order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant
      which was submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of                    equivalent to two years' salary to compensate him for
      the Staff Regulations on 11 November 2002, entered in                      the financial loss resulting from having lost his job;
      the register that day under No R/573/02, seeking the
      annulment of the contested decision;                                 —     order the European Agency for Reconstruction to pay the
                                                                                entire costs.
—     in consequence of those annulments, add the applicant's
      name to the list of eligible officials and regrade him to
      Grade A4 in the 2002 promotions procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay him EUR 15 000 in damages                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      for non-material damage and for having damaged his
      career;                                                              The applicant in these proceedings challenges the termination
                                                                           by the defendant of the contract for an indefinite term
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with             between them.
      Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      First Instance.
                                                                           In support of his claims, he alleges that the manner in which
                                                                           he was dismissed is contrary to the general principles
                                                                           governing the European civil service and, in particular the
                                                                           general principles of legality legitimate expectations, sound
                                                                           administration and proportionality. The applicant also refers
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            to the fact that the administrative authority did not call him to
                                                                           interview prior to the dismissal.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations             The applicant also alleges failure to provide a statement of
consisting in an alleged failure to provide reasons for the                reasons.
decision not to promote him, infringement of Articles 10 and
15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the


title: Case C-43/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 85/384/EEC — Architects — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications — Requirement to sit an entrance exam for the institute of architects)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-43/06) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/384/EEC - Architects - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications - Requirement to sit an entrance exam for the institute of architects)
   (2007/C 155/06)
   Language of the Case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and P. Guerra e Andrade,acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Portugal (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 10 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15) — Requirement to pass an entrance exam for the institute of architects in the host State, in order to carry on the profession of architect, for architects from other Member States who are not enrolled with their respective national institute of architects.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring holders of professional qualifications in architecture conferred by other Member States to sit an entrance exam for the Portuguese Institute of Architects if they were not enrolled in the institute of architects in another Member State, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 May 2001;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-292/16: Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/36

         Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims)
   (Case T-292/16)
   (2016/C 279/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims’ — EU trade mark No 11 361 714

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2492/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               accept the present appeal;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the suspension of the Appeal R 2492/2014-4 until a decision on the parallel proceedings R 1857/2015-4 (which is currently appealed before the General Court) becomes definitive;

               —

               condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of the principles of equality before the law and impartiality.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2003 in Case T-319/99: Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Public health service — Late payment of invoices — Complaint submitted by suppliers — Definition of undertaking)

text:
C 112/24              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                             G. Arendt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                        (2003/C 112/42)                                   C. Cattabriga and A. Dal Ferro) — application for the
                                                                          annulment of Commission decision C(1999) 2183 of 5 August
                                                                          1999, first, discontinuing the financial aid granted to the
At its plenary meeting on 2 April 2003, the Court of First                applicant by Commission decision C(91) 654/87 of 29 April
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 10 of the Rules of                  1991 in the framework of project IT/0166/91/01, entitled
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of the               ‘Modernisation of an aquaculture production unit at Contarina
period ending on 30 September 2003, to assign Judge Martins               (Veneto)’ and for an order directing the applicant to repay to
Ribeiro to the First Chamber, to the First Chamber, Extended              the Commission ITL 420 810 718 (EUR 217 330,59) — the
Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-                    Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
sition.                                                                   R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                          Judges; Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 2003, in which
Consequently, the composition of the Chambers as decided on
                                                                          it:
4 July 2002 (OJ C 202 of 24 August 2002, p. 19) is modified
as follows:
                                                                          1.     Dismisses the application;
First Chamber                                                             2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the
                                                                                proceedings for interim measures.
B. Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), H. Legal and M.E.
Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
First Chamber, Extended Composition
B. Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), J. Azizi, M. Jaeger,
H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
R. García-Valdecasas (President of the Chamber), P. Lindh,                                          of 4 March 2003
J.D. Cooke, H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                          in Case T-319/99: Federación Nacional de Empresas de
                                                                          Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental
                                                                           (FENIN) v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Public
                                                                          health service — Late payment of invoices — Complaint
                       of 12 March 2003                                         submitted by suppliers — Definition of undertaking)
in Case T-254/99: Maja Srl v Commission of the European
                                                                                (2003/C 112/44)
                        Communities (1)
(Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community aid — Sale                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
of business — Implementation of project — Procedure for
        discontinuance of aid — Action for annulment)
                        (2003/C 112/43)                                   In Case T-319/99, Federación Nacional de Empresas de
                                                                          Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN),
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                         established in Madrid (Spain), represented by R. García-
                                                                          Gallardo Gil-Fournier, G. Pérez Olmo and D. Domínguez
                                                                          Pérez, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities
In Case T-254/99: Maja Srl, formerly Ca’Pasta Srl, established            (Agents: W. Wils, É. Gippini-Fournier and J. Rivas Andrés):
in Padua (Italy), represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni and              Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 112/25
26 August 1999 (SG(99) D/7.040) rejecting a complaint                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
submitted pursuant to Article 82 EC, the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the application;                                           in Case T-56/00: Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd v
                                                                            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs together with those
       incurred by the Commission.
                                                                            (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                  Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 —
                                                                                Export licence scheme — Action for damages)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/46)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                        of 27 February 2003
in Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Com-
             munities v Ivo Camacho-Fernandes (1)
                                                                            In Case T-56/00, Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd, established
                                                                            in San José (Costa Rica), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor,
(Officials — Occupational disease — Irregularity in the                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
opinion of the medical committee — Objection against a                      European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix) and
                     judgment given by default)                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
                                                                            P. Oliver and C. Van der Hauwaert, then L. Visaggio and
                          (2003/C 112/45)                                   K. Fitch): Application for compensation for the damage
                                                                            allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the introduc-
                                                                            tion of the export licence scheme by Council Decision 94/
                     (Language of the case: French)                         800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on
                                                                            behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within
                                                                            its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
                                                                            Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336,
In Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            p. 1) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of
ties (Agents: J. Currall and J.-L. Fagnart) against Ivo Camacho-
                                                                            1 March 1995 on additional rules for the application of
Fernandes, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota
Communities, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                            arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and
N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13),
— objection against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
of 15 November 2000 in Case T-20/00 Camacho-Fernandes v
                                                                            J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-249 and II-1149 given by
                                                                            Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
default, annulling the Commission decision of 10 February
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung
cancer which resulted in the death of Mr Camacho Fernandes’s
wife — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,                  1.     Dismisses the application;
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
                                                                                the Council and the Commission.
1.     Dismisses the objection;
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the objection.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-11/08: Order of the President of the Court of 3 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-11/08) (1)

   (2009/C 6/33)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-279/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2014  — Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2014 — Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-279/14)
   2014/C 303/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of recital 15 in its preamble, is Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of an exceptional circumstance — which leads the air carrier, after that circumstance has occurred, to deliberately reroute flights and to first reschedule those flights which were directly affected by the exceptional circumstance — can justify a delay within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation and release the air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 to the passenger whose flight was operated only after the exceptional circumstance had been dealt with and all flights could be rescheduled?

               2.

               In this context, is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the air carrier which operates flights using a rotation procedure took all reasonable measures and is accordingly released from its obligation to pay compensation, when transporting passengers whose flight has already been significantly delayed due directly to an extraordinary circumstance, as a priority with aircraft which, in principle, are used differently in the rotation?

               3.

               Is recital 15 to be interpreted as meaning that only the aircraft directly affected by the strike, which is liable to affect one or more flights of that aircraft, may be affected by extraordinary circumstances, or does the circle of affected planes extend to several aircraft?

               4.

               In the context of reasonable measures within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, is the airline permitted to use aircraft that are not affected in order to minimise the consequences of the strike for passengers who are directly affected and accordingly to spread the effects of a strike among several aircraft and passengers?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-44/06: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Hellenic Ventures and Others (Arbitration clause — Action for the creation and development of seed-capital funds — Termination of the contract — Action against the members of a company — Inadmissibility — Reimbursement of advances — Interest)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Hellenic Ventures and Others
   (Case T-44/06) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Action for the creation and development of seed-capital funds - Termination of the contract - Action against the members of a company - Inadmissibility - Reimbursement of advances - Interest)
   2010/C 221/53
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, and S. Khatzigiannis, lawyer)

      Defendants: Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE (Athens, Greece); Konstantinos Katsigiannis (Athens); Panagiotis Khronopoulos (Athens); and Nikolaos Poulakos (Athens) (represented by: V. Khristianos and V. Vlassi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action under Article 238 EC by which the Commission seeks an order that the defendants reimburse an advance paid under a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, concluded between the Commission and the defendant company

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 70 000, together with late-payment interest calculated at the Belgian statutory rate from 25 April 1999 until payment in full of the debt;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Hellenic Ventures to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Action brought by Antonio Angelini against the Commission of the European Communities on 5 December 1995 (Case T-222/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96            1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 64/ 15
Action brought by Antonio Angelini against the                        objective fact of the person concerned being obliged to
Commission of the European Communities on 5 December                  transfer his residence elsewhere in order to comply with
                                 1995                                 Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter does not
                         ( Case T-222/95                              impose any further requirement or take any other factor into
                                                                      consideration .
                            ( 96/C 64/32
                                                                      In the applicant's submission, whilst the case-law has indeed
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       clarified the scope of the provisions of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                      it has done so in situations where legal requirements were
                                                                      not met ( failure to transfer residence or family property,
                                                                      transfer at the official 's own request and in his personal
An action against the Commission of the European                      interest, etc .) or in situations involving fraud . That is far
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     removed from the present case, in which there were no
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                    irregularities regarding the transfer of the applicant and his
1995 by Antonio Angelini , a former official of the                   family to another State , the renting of a home in Germany
Commission of the European Communities, resident at                   and the automatic return to Italy .
Ranco (Varese ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
Advocate with the right of audience before the Court of
Cassation of the Italian Republic, with an address for service        Finally, the applicant accuses the Commission of failing to
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                  take the judgment in Case T-508/93 Mancini into account in
Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                   the present case .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the measure whereby he was refused a
     resettlement allowance on resuming his duties at
     Ispra,
                                                                      Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Roger Tremblay,
                                                                      Harry Kestenberg and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux
— order the Commission to pay him the sums due under                  de Loisirs ( SELL ) against the Commission of the European
     Article 5 ( 2 ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations or                                     Communities
     those resulting from a fresh settlement of the amounts
     due to him under Article 38 of the Staff Regulations,                                     ( Case T-224/95 )
                                                                                96/C 64/33 )
— order interest at 8 % to be paid from the date of the claim
     until the date of settlement,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 13 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1995 by Roger Tremblay, residing at Vernantes ( France ),
                                                                      Harry Kestenberg, residing at Saint Andre Les Vergers
The applicant, a scientific and technical official of the              ( France ) and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de
Commission at the Ispra establishment of the Joint Research           Loisirs ( SELL ), established in Paris ( France ), represented by
Centre, maintains that the refusal to pay him a resettlement          Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
allowance on his return from a period of service abroad in            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
                                                                      Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .
the Iter Home Central Team of Garching was unlawful . The
contested decision assumes that he neither encountered any
particular difficulties in resettling in his place of origin, nor
needed to carry out a fresh removal , having returned to his          The applicants claim that the Court should :
own home in Italy .
                                                                      — annul the Decision of the Commission of 13 October
The applicant first stresses the contradiction in the fact that,            1995 , in that it rejects the complaint,
although he had changed his residence twice , he was paid the
daily allowance on his return to Ispra but not the                    — consequently, order the Commission to carry out the
corresponding resettlement allowance in addition .                          necessary investigations in order to establish evidence of
                                                                            the agreement,
Moreover, the provisions of the Staff Regulations
concerning the installation allowance refer exclusively to the         — order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-122/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/10

         Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-122/12 P)
   2012/C 165/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case T-77/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 173/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16.6.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the President of the European               —     annul the defendant’s decision, at least in so far as
      Central Bank of 12 March 2001 rejecting the applicant’s                 regards Article 43 of the Normas Forales mentioned in
      complaint;                                                              Article 1(b), (c) and (d) of that decision;
—     annul the defendant’s notice of termination dated 29 No-          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      vember 2000;
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
      between the parties has not been brought to an end by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the notice of termination dated 29 November 2000;
                                                                        This action has been brought against Commission Decision of
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
                                                                        31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (1), in so far
      between the parties has continued to exist, without being
                                                                        as it finds any aid granted by Spain under Article 43 of
      terminated, after 31 December 2000;
                                                                        Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax
                                                                        adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; Article 43 of
—     order the defendant to continue, beyond 31 December               Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
      2000, to provide the applicant with employment as a               adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipúzcoa; and Article 43
      security guard in accordance with the contractually agreed        of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
      conditions of employment;                                         adopted by the Provincial Council of Álava, to ECSC steel
                                                                        undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the
                                                                        common market in coal and steel.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Those fiscal provisions grant a 25 % reduction in respect of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         investments actually made in, inter alia, the creation of branches
                                                                        or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition
                                                                        of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries
The action is based on the same facts and circumstances as in           directly associated with the export of goods or services.
Cases T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, p. 61),
T-27/01 Tralli v ECB (not yet published) and T-56/01 Tralli v
ECB (not yet published); the pleas in law and arguments                 The contested decision was adopted following the procedure
advanced are analogous to those put forward in those cases.             laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision
                                                                        No 2496/96/ECSC (‘the Steel Aid Code’).
                                                                        In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that:
                                                                        —     the aid is non-existent, inasmuch as the provisions in
                                                                              issue are horizontal in nature and are of general appli-
                                                                              cation which does not result in any advantage either at
Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico                      regional level or with respect to a specific category of
de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against                      undertaking. The aid is non-existent also under the ECSC
         Commission of the European Communities                               Treaty, so that the applicants allege infringement of
                                                                              Article 4(c) of that Treaty, as well as misuse of powers,
                                                                              on the ground that the defendant chose the ECSC Treaty
                         (Case T-77/01)                                       as the basis for its decision.
                        (2001/C 173/65)                                 —     the Commission has failed to state reasons, in particular
                                                                              inasmuch as the contested decision amounts to a change
                                                                              of assessment criterion on the part of the Commission,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                             which has given no reasons for it.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               —     the Commission has failed to state reasons and committed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    an error of assessment, inasmuch as the finding of aid
European Communities on 30 March 2001 by Territorio                           automatically applies to the Normas Forales by the mere
Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others,                  fact that they coincide, so far as their content is concerned,
Spain, represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.                                 with State tax legislation.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/37
—     the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate,          Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association
      inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of                 Contre l’Horaire d’Été against the European Parliament
      excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales                           and the Council of the European Union
      which it envisages.
—     the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was                                         (Case T-84/01)
      infringed, inter alia by exceeding the time-limit of
      3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
      2496/96/ECSC.                                                                              (2001/C 173/67)
(1) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.
                                                                                (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
Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against                    Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  the Association Contre l’Horaire d’Été, established at Marly-le-
                                                                         Roi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
                          (Case T-83/01)                                 Steinmetz, avocats.
                         (2001/C 173/66)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         —     annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   arrangements, published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a                         European Communities on 2 February 2001.
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested decision;                                  The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
                                                                         arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Direc-
                                                                         tive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.
Trade mark concerned:         OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
                              n. 0000955138.                             In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:
Product or service:           ‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and
                              sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of         —     that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
                              the Nice Agreement).                             the Treaty, formerly Article 100a), inasmuch as the
                                                                               directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration of the trade             of participating in the approximation of the provisions
before the Board of           mark in question, because of its                 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Appeal:                       alleged descriptive character.                   Member States and having as its objective the establish-
Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7 (1) c)                 ment and functioning of the internal market;
                              and b) of Regulation (EC)
                              No 40/94.                                  —     that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
                                                                               dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
                                                                               to the proper functioning of the internal market.


title: Case C-382/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 July 2013 — C.E. Franzen and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 July 2013 — C.E. Franzen and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)
   (Case C-382/13)
   2013/C 274/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: C.E. Franzen, H.D. Giesen, F. van den Berg

      Respondent: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)

      Questions referred

               1a.

               Must Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a resident of a Member State who comes within the scope of that regulation and who for not more than two or three days per month is employed in the territory of another Member State on the basis of an on-call contract, is on that ground subject there to the social security legislation of the State of employment?

               1b.

               If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, does the subjection to the social security legislation of the State of employment apply both on the days on which the employment activities are performed and on the days on which those activities are not performed and, if so, how long does that subjection continue after the final employment activities have in fact been carried out?

               2.

               Does Article 13(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude a migrant worker to whom the social security legislation of the State of employment applies from being regarded, by virtue of national legislation of the State of residence, as an insured person under the AOW [Algemene ouderdomswet (Netherlands General Law on Old-Age Insurance)] in the latter State?

               3a.

               Must European Union law, in particular the provisions concerning freedom of movement for workers and/or citizens of the Union, be interpreted as precluding, in the circumstances of the present cases, the application of a national provision such as Article 6a of the AOW and/or the AKW [Algemene kinderbijslagwet (Netherlands General Law on Child Benefits)], under which a migrant worker residing in the Netherlands is excluded there from insurance cover under the AOW and/or the AKW on the ground that he is subject exclusively to German social security legislation, even in circumstances where that worker, as a ‘geringfügig Beschäftigte’ (person in minor employment), is excluded in Germany from insurance cover for purposes of the ‘Altersrente’ (old-age pension) and is not entitled to ‘Kindergeld’ (child allowance)?

               3b.

               Is it significant, for purposes of the answer to Question 3(a), that it was possible to take out voluntary insurance under the AOW or to request the Svb (Netherlands Social Insurance Bank) to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).