title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2002 in Case T-387/00 Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale "Effette degli inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima e sulla vegetazione" v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Application actually concerning a contractual dispute — Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Inadmissibility)

text:
26.10.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 261/13
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  e sulla vegetazione’ having its registered office in Rome, Italy,
                                                                             represented by P. Grassi and G. Russo, lawyers, with an
                            of 10 July 2002                                  address for service in Luxembourg against Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and
in Case T-146/00 DEP: S. Ruf and M. Stier v Office for the                   R. Amorosi) — application for the annulment of the measure
Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                        allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission requesting
                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                the applicant to repay part of the sums granted under
                                                                             financing contract B4/91/3046/11396 concluded between the
                          (Taxation of costs)                                Commission and the applicant to enable the organisation of a
                                                                             conference to study the effects of atmospheric pollutants on
                           (2002/C 261/21)                                   climate and vegetation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                             Chamber), composed of M, Vilaras, President of the Chamber,
                    (Language of the case: German)                           V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, for the Registrar, has
                                                                             made an order on 10 July 2002, the operative part of which is
                                                                             as follows:
In Case T-146/00 DEP: S. Ruf, residing in Ettlingen (Germany),
and M. Stier, residing in Pfinztal (Germany), represented by                 1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
V. Spitz, A.N. Klinger and A. Gaul, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Office for the Harmonisation of               2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent:
E. Joly) — application for taxation of the costs to be paid by
the applicants to the defendant following the judgment of the                (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
Court of First Instance of 20 June 2001 in Case T-146/00 Ruf
and Stier v OHIM (‘DAKOTA’ Image) [2001] ECR II-1797 —
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July 2002,
in which it:
                                                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Fixes the total costs to be paid by the applicants to the Office in Case                                 INSTANCE
T-146/00 at EUR 2 692,63.
                                                                                of 11 July 2002
( 1) OJ C 233, 12.8.2000.
                                                                             in Cases T-107/01 R and T-175/01 R, Société des mines de
                                                                             Sacilor — Lormines v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  (Interlocutory proceedings — Suspension of operation —
                                                                                Interim measures — Article 88 ECSC)
                            of 10 July 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 261/23)
in Case T-387/00 Comitato organizzatore del convegno
internazionale ‘Effette degli inquinamenti atmosferici sul
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
clima e sulla vegetazione’ v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Application actually concerning a                    In Cases T-107/01 R and T-175/01 R, Société des mines de
contractual dispute — Lack of jurisdiction of the Community                  Sacilor — Lormines, established in Puteaux, France, represent-
                   judicature — Inadmissibility)                             ed by R. Schmitt, avocat against Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and L. Ström) — application
                           (2002/C 261/22)                                   for suspension of the operation of the Commission– s decisions
                                                                             of 30 March, 21 April, 9 and 10 July 2001, and for interim
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         measures ordering the Commission to uphold the complaints
                                                                             submitted to it by the applicant on 9 February and 9 May
                                                                             2001 — the President of the Court of First Instance has made
In Case T-387/00: Comitato organizzatore del convegno                        an order on 11 July 2002, the operative part of which is as
internazionale ‘Effette degli inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima             follows:


title: Case T-156/04: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — EDF v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Procedural rights of the aid beneficiary — Effect on trade between Member States — Criterion of private investor)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — EDF v Commission
   (Case T-156/04) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Procedural rights of the aid beneficiary - Effect on trade between Member States - Criterion of private investor)
   2010/C 37/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Électricité de France (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and C. Giolito, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision on State aid granted to EDF and to the gas and electricity industry sectors (C 68/2002, N 504/2003 and C 25/2003), adopted on 16 December 2003.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision on State aid granted to EDF and to the gas and electricity industry sectors (C 68/2002, N 504/2003 and C 25/2003), adopted on 16 December 2003;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Électricité de France (EDF);

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Iberdrola, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


title: Case T-455/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár (Appeal — Civil service — Europol staff — Fixed-term contracts — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence — Financial compensation)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár
   (Case T-455/11) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Europol staff - Fixed-term contracts - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence - Financial compensation)
   2013/C 377/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and E. Antypas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Andreas Kalmár (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 in Case F-83/09 Kalmár v Europol, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Police Office (Europol) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andreas Kalmár in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T-96/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Rot Front v OHIM — Rakhat (Маcка) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Маcка — Unregistered earlier national figurative mark Маcка — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application by OHIM of national law)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Rot Front v OHIM — Rakhat (Маcка)
   (Case T-96/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Маcка - Unregistered earlier national figurative mark Маcка - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application by OHIM of national law))
   (2015/C 429/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented initially by B. Térauda, and subsequently by O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rakhat AO (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Rot Front OAO and Rakhat AO.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 893/2012-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Rot Front OAO.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-100/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/8

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
   (Case C-100/16 P)
   (2016/C 175/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos, I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The judgment under appeal held that all the conditions of Article 107 (1) TFEU were satisfied with regard to two State aid measures; the first State aid measure concerns the sale of the Cassandra Mines to the Appellant at a price which is lower than their market value. The second measure concerns the waiver of tax, in relation to the land value of the mines.

               2.

               The Appellant relies on three grounds of appeal, two in respect of the first State aid measure and one in respect of the second State aid measure. More specifically:

                           —

                              In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning and procedural irregularity in respect of the value of the mines.

                           —

                              In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning, in respect of the land value.

                           —

                              In relation to the second State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by error in law.


title: Case T-334/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Different Overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet)
   (Case T-334/14) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No scope for innovation - Different Overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2015/C 429/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2014 (Case R 812/2012-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Villeroy & Boch AG and Roca Sanitario, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Roca Sanitario, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case F-15/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Abba and Others v Parliament

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/67

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Abba and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-15/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/134)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 37.


title: Case C-89/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — United Utilities plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(f) — Exemption for games of chance — Scope — Activity of a call centre)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — United Utilities plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-89/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(f) - Exemption for games of chance - Scope - Activity of a call centre)
   (2006/C 224/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: United Utilities plc

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling — Applicability to supplies of services by a third company which accepts bets made by telephone on behalf of another company
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13B(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of call centre services to a telephone bookmaking organiser, which entails the staff of the supplier of those services accepting bets on behalf of the organiser, does not constitute a betting transaction within the meaning of that provision and cannot, therefore, qualify for the exemption from VAT laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case T-377/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — ultra air GmbH v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/49

         Action brought on 17 July 2013 — ultra air GmbH v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)
   (Case T-377/13)
   2013/C 260/87
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2013 in Case R 1100/2011-4;

               —

               Order OHIM, and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH should it participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark No 7 480 585

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute ground of invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed; Community trade mark declared invalid

      Pleas in law:

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

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

               Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-463/05: Action brought on  22 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-463/05)
   (2006/C 48/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dominique Maidani and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2002/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 11 of Directive 2002/47 imposed an obligation on Member States to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 27 December 2003 at the latest and immediately to inform the Commission of those provisions.
   The Commission finds that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not yet adopted those measures or in any event has not notified it of them.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43.


title: Case C-419/01: Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
8.12.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348/21
Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission                     identification cannot be considered valid as it does not meet
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      the conditions concerning safety and publication required by
                              Spain                                     Community case-law for the full implementation of directives.
                         (Case C-419/01)                                (1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
                         (2001/C 348/37)
                                                                        Action brought on 26 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                                            Republic
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 Octo-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero, of its Legal Service, acting as                                  (Case C-425/01)
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of its Legal Service, Wagner                                      (2001/C 348/38)
Centre.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        26 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Horstpeter Kreppel and Miguel
—     Declare that, by having identified sensitive areas in respect     França, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      of only part of its territory, the Kingdom of Spain has           Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive          Centre, Kirchberg.
      91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-
      water treatment (1),
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      —      Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                               its oligations under Articles 4, 10, 11 and 12 of Council
                                                                               Directive 89/391/EEC (1),
                                                                        —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 5(1) of Directive 91/271/EEC provides that Member
States were to identify, by 31 December 1993 sensitive areas            The Portuguese Republic has still not adopted any legislation
according to the criteria laid down in Annex II (freshwater             relating to the procedure for electing workers’ representatives
bodies and coastal waters which are found to be eutrophic or            in health and safety matters at work. The fact that there are no
which in the near future may become eutrophic, nitrate                  workers’ representatives in health and safety matters at the
content of surface freshwater intended for the abstraction of           work place — for lack of legislation governing election
drinking water and water requiring further treatment to fulfil          procedures — makes it impossible for workers to exercise their
other Community directives). The present action concerns                rights in that regard. Contrary to the Portuguese authorities’
only the failure to identify sensitive areas with respect to            contention, if it were not necessary to adopt the legislation
waters for which the Autonomous Communities are respon-                 proper to the implementation of the electoral procedure to
sible: waters relating to intra-community river basins and              enable workers to elect their representatives, the express
coastal waters.                                                         mention made by the Portuguese legislature in Article 23(2)(b)
                                                                        of Decree Law No 441/91 of the need to legislate for that
                                                                        electoral procedure would be entirely redundant.
So far, only the Autonomous Communities of Andalucı́a,
Galicia, Murcia and Cantabria have identified their sensitive           (1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduc-
areas in respect of coastal waters, gazetted them and communi-              tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
cated them to the Commission. So far as concerns the river                  health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).
basin draining waters only from within the Autonomous
Community of Catalonia, the Commission takes the view that


title: Case T-92/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  26 January 2006  — Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission (State aid — tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear installations established in Germany for the purpose of eliminating their radioactive waste and the definitive — Decision finding that there is no Sate aid at the end of the preliminary examination procedure — Action for annulment)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2006 — Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission
   (Case T-92/02) (1)

   (State aid - tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear installations established in Germany for the purpose of eliminating their radioactive waste and the definitive - Decision finding that there is no Sate aid at the end of the preliminary examination procedure - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 74/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany), Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH (Tübingen, Germany) and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH (Uelzen, Germany) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: E.ON Kernkraft GmbH (Hanover, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany), EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) and Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and D. Sellner, lawyers)
   Application for
   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners.

      (1)  OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Case C-426/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2015 by the Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the judgment delivered on 19 May 2015 by the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-397/12 Diputación Foral de Bizkaia v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/10

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2015 by the Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the judgment delivered on 19 May 2015 by the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-397/12 Diputación Foral de Bizkaia v Commission

   (Case C-426/15 P)
   (2015/C 337/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal

               —

               grant the application made at first instance

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      First ground of appeal: Error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 108(3) TFEU, first sentence (obligation to give prior notice) and, in particular, of the word ‘conceder’ (grant) which appears in [the Spanish version of] that provision in connection with the word ‘otorgar’ (grant) referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the General Court confirmed the Commission’s statement (article 2 of the Contested Decision) (1) that the aid notified in the agreements is unlawful, that aid being ‘granted’ on 15 December 2006 in breach of the obligation of prior notification. Error of law in not applying the principle of EU Law in relation to state aid in accordance with which any assessment to determine the moment at which state aid can be considered ‘granted’ has to be undertaken in the light of the national legislation applicable to the case in point. Error of law in wrongly applying the concept of ‘unlawful aid’ laid down in Article 1(f) of Regulation No 659/1999 (2). Breach of the principle of legality.

      Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in confirming the existence of an ‘unlawful aid’ in the ‘land agreement’ on the basis of the stipulation of a time-limit of 12 months. Error of law in failing to apply the principle of EU law in relation to state aid in accordance with which any assessment to determine the moment at which state aid can be considered ‘granted’ has to be undertaken in the light of the national law applicable to the case in point.

      Third ground of appeal: Error of law in that the General Court did not find that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, breached the principle of good administration. Error of law in not finding the infringement of the rights and procedural guarantees available to the Diputación as a party concerned in the proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU. Error of law in holding implicitly that the Commission’s letter of 15 April 2010 was a satisfactory response to the requirements flowing from the above-cited general principle. Distortion of the clear sense of the main evidence. Breach of the right to a fair hearing. Breach of the rights of defence.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2012) 4194 final of 27 June 2012, concerning state aid SA. 28356 (C 37/20090) (ex N 226/2009).

      (2)  Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p.1).


title: Case T-754/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/40

         Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse)
   (Case T-754/16)
   (2017/C 014/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and V. Rodríguez Pombo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31/08/16 in Case R 2608/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;

               —

               rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;

               —

               grant the application, annulling the contested decision and refusing the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 088 19, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


4.5.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 109/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/01 (1)                ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds (United Kingdom)):
                                                                     P. Breckon and M. Barrett v Secretary of State for Employment.
                        (2002/C 109/78)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
By order of 17 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/01: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-183/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/81)
                                                                     By order of 8 January 2002 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case    C-127/01 (1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-183/01: Commission of the
                        (2002/C 109/79)                              European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
By order of 30 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-127/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-382/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/82)
       Removal from the register of Case C-137/01 (1)                By order of 6 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2002/C 109/80)                              from the register of Case C-382/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland.
By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-137/01 (Reference for a preliminary      (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 1999 in Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 246/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
1. Operation of the decision of 27 October 1998, imposing on the          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
    applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without                                  INSTANCE
    reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement pension,
    is suspended pending delivery of final judgment in the case by the                            of 21 June 1999
    Court of First Instance;
                                                                          in Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA v Commission of the
2. The costs are reserved.                                                                     European Communities
                                                                          (Competition — Payment of the fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                          Procedure for interim measures — Suspension of enforce-
                                                                                ment)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA, established in Monrovia,
                                                                          represented by Dimitrios Papatheofanous, lawyer with right of
                         of 9 March 1999                                  audience before the Arios Pagos, Athens, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas, Route de
                                                                          Trèves, Findel, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission                     (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Richard Lyal) — application
               of the European Communities (1)                            for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision
                                                                          1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
                                                                          pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek
                    (Manifest inadmissibility)                            Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), Article 2 of which fined the
                                                                          applicant ECU 0.26 million for breach of Article 81 EC
                                                                          (formerly Article 85 of the EC Treaty) — the President of the
                          (1999/C 246/65)                                 Court of First Instance made an order on 21 June 1999, the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2. Costs are reserved.
In Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A., established at Agen (France),
Jean-Marie Bissieres, residing at La Croix Blanche (France), SA
Lomagenais, now known as SA Loma, established at Penne
D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at Canet
(France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of the Agen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities — application for an order of the Court allowing                                         INSTANCE
a rebate application lodged by the first applicant with the
French customs authorities on 20 December 1998 in relation                                         of 1 June 1999
to certain imports of mushrooms originating in Poland — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                 in Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Com-
Registrar, made an order on 9 March 1999, the operative part                         mission of the European Communities
of which is as follows:
                                                                             (Proceedings for interim measures — Urgency — None)
1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (1999/C 246/67)
2. The applicants are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                 In Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the
                                                                          Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
                                                                          of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at Mr Colussi’s
                                                                          chambers, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for,


title: Case T-65/10: Action brought on 11 February 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/59

         Action brought on 11 February 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-65/10)
   2010/C 100/87
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9270 final of 30 November 2009 reducing the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Operational Programme for Andalusia ‘Objective 1’ (1994-1999) in Spain granted under Decision C(94) 3456 of 9 December 1994, ERDF NO 94.11.09.001, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action the Kingdom of Spain challenges the above mentioned decision. In support of its action, the Kingdom of Spain raises the following pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, (1) by using the extrapolation method in the contested decision since that article does not provide for the possibility to extrapolate from the irregularities found in specific actions the irregularity of all the actions included in the Operational Programmes financed by the ERDF from. The correction applied by the Commission in the contested decision lacks a legal basis because, pursuant to the judgment in Case C-443/97 Kingdom of Spain v Commission [2000] ECR I-2415, the Commission’s internal guidelines of 15 October 1997 concerning net financial corrections in the context of the application of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 cannot produce legal effects vis-à-vis the Member States, and because Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 only provides for the reduction of aid in respect of which an irregularity has been determined in the course of an examination. The application of corrections by extrapolation contradicts that principle.

               —

               In the alternative, infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU (principle of cooperation in good faith), by applying the correction by extrapolation in spite of the fact that it was not shown that the management, control and auditing system in relation to the amended contracts was insufficient, given that the managing bodies applied Spanish law which has not been declared contrary to European Union law by the Court of Justice. The Kingdom of Spain claims that the fact that the managing authorities adhere to national law, even if that may result in the Commission finding irregularities or specific infringements of European Union law, cannot serve as a basis to extrapolate the ineffectiveness of the management system where the law applied by those bodies has not been declared contrary to European Union law by the Court of Justice and the Commission has not brought an action for failure to act against the Member State pursuant to Article 258 TFEU.

               —

               In the further alternative, infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 since the sample used for the application of the financial correction by extrapolation was not representative. The Commission composed the sample by extrapolating from a very reduced number of projects (37 out of 5 319), without taking account of all the axes of the Operational Programme, including expenses withdrawn beforehand by the Spanish authorities, by working on the basis of the declared expenses and not the aid granted and by using an IT programme which was less than 85 % reliable. For that reason, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the sample does not satisfy the requirements of representation necessary for it to be able to be used as a basis for extrapolation.

               —

               The limitation period for proceedings under Article 3 of Council Regulation 2988/95 has expired. (2) Finally, the Kingdom of Spain submits that the day on which the Spanish authorities were informed of the existence of irregularities (which took place in October 2004 and for the most part concerned irregularities committed in 1997, 1998 and 1999) should constitute the starting point of the limitation period for those irregularities, in accordance with the four-year limitation period laid down in Article 3 of Regulation 2988/95.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-476/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive No 2001/55/EC — Mass influx of displaced persons — Temporary protection — Minimum standards)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 17 November 2005
   in Case C-476/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive No 2001/55/EC - Mass influx of displaced persons - Temporary protection - Minimum standards)
   (2006/C 22/03)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-476/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Kontoy and C. O'Reilly) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 November 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6 of 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-412/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TRUBION — Earlier Community figurative mark TriBion Harmonis — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)
   (Case T-412/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TRUBION - Earlier Community figurative mark TriBion Harmonis - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 37/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented initially by M. Best and R. Freitag, and subsequently by M. Best and U. Pfleghar, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2008 (Case R 1605/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Merck KGaA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-420/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2016 by Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2016 in Case T-529/13 Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis v European Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/8

         Appeal brought on 28 July 2016 by Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2016 in Case T-529/13 Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis v European Commission
   (Case C-420/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellants: Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis (represented by: D. Sobor, ügyvéd)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary, Hellenic Republic, Romania and Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 in Case T-529/13 and, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

                           —

                           First, annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4975 of 25 July 2013 rejecting the application for registration of the contested initiative, annulment of which the applicants sought in their application, and decide the case on the merits, and

                           —

                           In the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give final judgment, refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants rely on the following grounds in support of their appeal:

               1.

               First ground, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter and Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, especially with regard to the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information regarding the burden of proof, in so far as, in the opinion of the appellants, before delivering its judgment, the General Court did not inform the parties to the proceedings that it considered the questions whether the implementation of the policy of cohesion of the European Union, both by the EU and by the Member States, may threaten the specific characteristics of regions with a national minority and whether the specific ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics of regions with a national minority may be considered a severe and permanent handicap within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU to be questions of fact which must be examined in the proceedings.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging infringement of Article 11(4) TEU and Article 4(2)(b) of the Regulation on the citizens’ initiative (1) in so far as, in the opinion of the appellants, the European citizens’ initiative which is the subject-matter of the proceedings complied with Article 11(4) TEU, given that the organisers proposed it regarding a question on which they consider that a legal act of the Union is required in order to implement the Treaties, and the European Commission had competence to submit the appropriate proposal. Furthermore, the appellants assert that the Commission may refuse the registration of a proposal for a citizens’ initiative on the ground of lack of competence only where that lack of competence is manifest.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(c) TFEU and Article 174 TFEU, in so far as the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU lists by way of example circumstances constituting severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such that the cohesion policy of the EU must pay ‘particular attention’ to a region.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging infringement of Article 7 TFEU, Article 167 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the Charter and the provisions of the Treaties relating to the prohibition of discrimination, in so far as the European citizens’ initiative which is the subject-matter of the proceedings promotes the consistency of the policies and actions of the EU called for by Article 7 TFEU by calling for cultural diversity and its maintenance to be taken into account by the cohesion policy.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Article 4(c) CS, Articles 67 CS and 95 CS — Financial intervention in favour of the undertaking Salzgitter — Border between the former German Democratic Republic and former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic — Non-notified aid — Sixth Steel Aid Code — Legal certainty)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 July 2004
   in Case T-308/00: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Article 4(c) CS, Articles 67 CS and 95 CS - Financial intervention in favour of the undertaking Salzgitter - Border between the former German Democratic Republic and former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic - Non-notified aid - Sixth Steel Aid Code - Legal certainty)
   (2004/C 239/28)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-308/00: Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by K. Schroeter, lawyer) against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and V. Kreuschitz) — application for an annulment of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p. 5) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG);

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear one-third of its costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.


title: Case C-330/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/43/EC — Company law — Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-330/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/43/EC - Company law - Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 100/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

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

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case C-269/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Kansaneläkelaitos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(4) — Service concession — Definition — Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/18

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Kansaneläkelaitos
   (Case C-269/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(4) - Service concession - Definition - Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys))
   (2015/C 236/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

   Kansaneläkelaitos

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an aggregation of contracts, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to constitute a ‘service concession’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the contracting authority has transferred the entirety of, or a significant share of, the risk which it bears in relation to the economic exploitation of the services; this being a matter which must be determined by the referring court taking into account all the inherent characteristics of the services covered by that aggregation of contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/54

         Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-53/04)
   (2004/C 94/144)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUDWEISER for Class 25 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ — Application No 24620 in respect of goods in Class 25 (clothing etc)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUDWEISER BIER’, ‘BUDWEISER BIER – BUDVAR’, ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

      (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-297/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgerichts Laufen (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2012 — Strafverfahren v Gjoko Filev and Adnan Osmani

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgerichts Laufen (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2012 — Strafverfahren v Gjoko Filev and Adnan Osmani
   (Case C-297/12)
   2012/C 250/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgerichts Laufen

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Traunstein

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from reinforcing expulsions or deportations under administrative law with criminal sanctions, if the expulsion/deportation occurred more than 5 years prior to re-entry?

               2.

               Is Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as prohibiting the Federal Republic of Germany from reinforcing expulsions or deportations under administrative law with criminal sanctions, if the expulsion/deportation occurred more than 5 years prior to the German transposition law of 22 November 2011 entering into force?

               3.

               Does national legislation which provides that expulsions/deportations in principle have unlimited effect, unless the concerned person lodges an application for a time-limit, comply with EU law for the purposes of Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115? Does such a provision comply with recital 4 in the preamble to the directive in the sense of a well managed migration policy through clear, transparent and fair rules?

               4.

               Is the Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from providing that expulsions/deportations, which predated the period of non-transposition of the directive by 5 years or more, may subsequently be made the basis of a criminal law sanction again, if the expulsion/deportation was based on a conviction under criminal law?

      (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals; OJ 2008 L 343, p. 98.


title: Case T-25/02: Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Michel Sautelet against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/25
1.    The applications for interim measures are dismissed.                 —    the aid in question must be regarded as having been in
                                                                                existence ever since 1928. In adopting the contested
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                   decision, the Commission omitted the entire procedure
                                                                                provided for by the first paragraph of Article 88;
                                                                           —    infringement of the Community rules concerning
                                                                                improvements in the efficiency of agricultural structure
                                                                                and of the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for
                                                                                rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’.
Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Giuseppe Atzeni
and Others against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                    The applicants also plead failure to comply with the obligation
                                                                           to provide a statement of reasons.
                           (Case T-21/02)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 20.
                          (2002/C 118/40)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Michel Sautelet
European Communities on 25 January 2002 by the applicants                    against the Commission of the European Communities
specified above, represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio
Ciulli, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-25/02)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 118/41)
—     pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, declare unlawful,
      and consequently annul in its entirety, Commission                                      (Language of the case: French)
      Decision 612/97, alternatively annul the same in so far
      as it provides for the recovery of the aid granted to the
      applicants by the Italian State, and order the Commission
      to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Michel
                                                                           Sautelet, residing at Kirchberg (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
This action is directed against the same decision as that
contested in Case T-4/02 Arca Delio eredi and Others v
Commission (1)                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    annul the express decision No 39090 of 6 November
In support of their claims, the applicants plead:                               2001 fixing the compensation for the non-material
                                                                                damage suffered by the applicant in the sum of
—     lack of competence on the part of the defendant,                          1 500euros;
      inasmuch as the competition rules are not in principle
      applicable in the agriculture sector. As regards the
      provisions of Regulation No 26/62, the applicants main-              —    award the applicant the sum of 12 394,68 euros (rep-
      tain that, in the present case, no aid was granted, either                resenting the sum of LUF 500 000) by way of compen-
      for production or for trade in the agricultural sector;                   sation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of
      instead, what was intended was merely the re-establish-                   the lateness in drawing up his staff report for the period
      ment of the necessary liquidity for agricultural undertak-                from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
      ings facing objective difficulties, as expressly identified by
      the Region of Sardinia. Moreover, that regulation provides           —    annul the express decision No 44024 of 15 November
      that the rules concerning aid are applicable only in                      2001 declaring inadmissible complaint No 497/01 of
      relation to the matters covered by Article 88(1) and the                  31 October 2001, registered by the General Secretariat of
      first sentence of Article 88(3);                                          the Commission on 5 November 2001;
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18.5.2002
—     award the applicant the sum of 247 893,52 euros                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      (representing the sum of LUF 1 000 000) by way of
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
      result of the lateness in drawing up his staff reports for        The applicant manufactures, inter alia, particle boards and
      the periods from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and from             oriented strand boards. It is contesting the Commission’s
      1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;                                      decision, published in OJ C 333 of 28 November 2001, not to
                                                                        raise any objections to the grant to Glunz AG of Aid
—     rule on the costs, expenses and fees which the defendant          No N 517/2000. That aid concerns a non-repayable advance
      should be ordered to pay.                                         of EUR 46201868 and an investment allowance of
                                                                        EUR 23596120 for the construction of an integrated wood
                                                                        processing plant at Nettgau in the Land of Sachsen-Anhalt,
                                                                        Federal Republic of Germany.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant asserts as follows:
The applicant claims that he has suffered non-material damage           The Commission did not adhere strictly to the guidelines/
on account of a breach of the principle of sound administration         framework rules. Rather than involving application of the
and failure to act in good faith and to fulfil the duty of              multisectoral framework on regional aid, the matter arguably
cooperation as regards the drawing up of his consecutive staff          constitutes restructuring aid. The Commission wrongly con-
reports. In addition, according to the applicant, those faults          sidered, when applying the multisectoral Community frame-
have been repeated time and again and show that the                     work for the purposes of determining the competitive factor,
Commission does not bother to comply with the rules.                    that particle boards and oriented strand boards formed part of
                                                                        a single relevant market, instead of assessing the markets for
                                                                        those products separately. The annual growth rates were
                                                                        incorrectly assessed; the product market in question is posi-
                                                                        tively shrinking. Consequently, the competitive factor accord-
                                                                        ing to Point 3.10 of the multisectoral framework is not 1.00
                                                                        but 0.25. The particle board market is experiencing a ruinous
                                                                        price war. That price war is being intensified to an intolerable
                                                                        degree by the further subsidisation of new production plants.
Action brought on 4 February 2002 by Kronofrance S.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    The Commission disregarded the discretion vested in it and
                                                                        incorrectly assumed, when approving the aid, that it had no
                                                                        latitude in the matter. That failure to exercise its discretion
                         (Case T-27/02)                                 constitutes an error of assessment.
                                                                        Even if it is assumed that, from a formal standpoint, the
                        (2002/C 118/42)                                 Commission correctly applied the multisectoral framework on
                                                                        regional aid, it must be doubted whether that framework is
                                                                        compatible with Article 87 EC.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By failing to initiate the formal examination procedure,
                                                                        despite considerable difficulties in reviewing the aid and an
                                                                        investigation lasting nearly 12 months, the Commission has
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               infringed both Regulation No 659/1999 and Article 88(2) EC,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              thereby breaching an essential procedural requirement and
European Communities on 4 February 2002 by Kronofrance                  substantive law.
S.A., of Sully sur Loire (France), represented by R. Nierer,
lawyer.
                                                                        The fact that no formal examination procedure was initiated
                                                                        has unlawfully prevented the applicant and the Member States
                                                                        from taking part in such a procedure. This is contrary to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             applicant’s rights of defence and restrictive of its right to a fair
                                                                        hearing.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 not to
      raise any objections to the grant of aid by the Federal           The contested decision is not supported by an adequate
      Republic of Germany to Glunz AG;                                  statement of reasons.
—     order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
      the costs of the applicant.


title: Case C-60/13: Action brought on 4 February 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/11

         Action brought on 4 February 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-60/13)
   2013/C 141/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, L. Flynn, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by refusing to make available the sum of £ 20 061 462,11 in relation to duties on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of Decision 2000/597/EC (1) and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1150/2000 (2).;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the Commission claims that the United Kingdom authorities caused a loss of traditional own resources by issuing Binding Tariff Information documents without due care which allowed imports of fresh Chinese garlic outside quota. The Commission considers that, where there has been an administrative error and consequently own resources were unduly not established, the EU must be credited with the equivalent of the amount of own resources lost. Accordingly, the United Kingdom authorities should have made available to the Commission the total amount of customs duties involved, which is estimated at £ 20 061 462,11, as well as the interest due on late payments under Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.

      (1)  2000/597/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities' own resources
   OJ L 253, p. 42

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources
   OJ L 130, p. 1


No C 95/ 14             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30 . 3 . 96
      institutions are able to transfer their rights to the                by order of that court of 1 February 1996 , received at the
       Community pensions scheme, the Kingdom of Spain has                 Court Registry on 22 February 1996, for a preliminary
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 ) of           ruling in the case of Hermes International societe en
   v Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the               commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV
      European Communities f 1 ) and Article 5 of the EC                   on the following question :
      Treaty; and
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                          is an interim measure, such as, for example, is provided for
                                                                           in Article 289 et seq. of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Rechtsvordering (Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure )
                                                                           whereby an immediate, enforceable measure may be sought,
Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges its                covered by the expression 'provisional measures' within the
obligation to comply with the provisions and Royal Decrees                 meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related
have been drafted, no national implementing measures in                    Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS ) (*)?
the field have yet been adopted .
                                                                           (') OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 213 .
(') Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 259/68 of the Council of
     29 February 1968 ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 30 ),
     as amended by Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 571 /92
     ( OJ No L 62 , 1962 , p. 1 ).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-402/95
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/27 )
Reference        for      preliminary         ruling     from      the
Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that
court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermes                             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
International societe en commandite par actions, Paris v.
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                   FHT Marketing Choice BV                                 22 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                           ( Case C-53/96 )                                Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                             ( 96/C 95/26 )                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by order of the                                By order of 20 February 1996 the Court has ordered that
Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam,                    the case be removed from the register.
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                       of 15 February 1996                                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                           21 , Rue de Nassau, v. European Foundation for the
in Case T-5 89/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ( Agents :
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                       John McColgan and subsequently Terry Sheehan, in the
                             Conditions ( 1 )                              written procedure, and Clive Purkiss, in the oral procedure,
(Officials — Servants of the European Foundation for the                   assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions —                             the annulment of the notice of vacancy concerning
Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an internal                           a post as administrator of the Foundation's publications
candidate — Actions for annulment of measures — Action                     programme, the notice of restricted competition relating to
                             for damages)                                  the filling of that post, the recruitment committee's
                             ( 96/C 95/28 )                                memorandum of 5 November 1993 and the decision of the
                                                                           Director of the Foundation of 22 November 1993 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant's application for that post, and , second, an
                                                                           order requiring the Foundation to pay damages in the sum
                 (Language of the case: French)                            of Bfrs 75 000 the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
                                                                           composed of: C. P. Briet, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
                                                                           A. Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 February 1996, in which it:
In Case T-589/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan, a servant of the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, represented by Luc Misson and                          1 . dismisses the action;


title: Case C-216/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2010/64/EU — Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — Language of the proceedings — Penalty order imposing a fine — Possibility of lodging an objection in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Right to be informed of the charge — Service of a penalty order — Procedures — Mandatory appointment by the accused person of person authorised to accept service — Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci
   (Case C-216/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2010/64/EU - Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings - Language of the proceedings - Penalty order imposing a fine - Possibility of lodging an objection in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right to be informed of the charge - Service of a penalty order - Procedures - Mandatory appointment by the accused person of person authorised to accept service - Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service))
   (2015/C 406/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Laufen

      Party in the main criminal proceedings

   Gavril Covaci

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in criminal proceedings, does not permit the individual against whom a penalty order has been made to lodge an objection in writing against that order in a language other than that of the proceedings, even though that individual does not have a command of the language of the proceedings, provided that the competent authorities do not consider, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, that, in the light of the proceedings concerned and the circumstances of the case, such an objection constitutes an essential document.

               2.

               Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, makes it mandatory for an accused person not residing in that Member State to appoint a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order concerning him, provided that that accused person does in fact have the benefit of the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection against that order.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Notice of open competitions

text:
No C 140 / 22      EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                            11 . 5 . 96
                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                              Notice of open competitions
                                                     (96/C 140/ 13 )
            The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in the Official Journal of the
            European Communities No C 140 A of 11 May 1996 the following open competitions :
            English edition
            CJ/LA/ 16 (interpreters of English mother-tongue)
            Italian edition
            CJ/LA/ 17 (interpreters of Italian mother-tongue)
            To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
            Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
            Closing date for application : 14 June 1996.


title: Case T-421/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Systran v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/29

         Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Systran v Commission
   (Case T-421/15)
   (2015/C 337/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Hoss, E. Omes and P. Hoffmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               join the present case with Case T-481/13;

               —

               annul the decision of 25 June 2015 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union;

               —

               order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision by which, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2013 in Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg (C-103/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:245), it orders the recovery of compensatory interest, plus interest on late payment from 19 August 2013, on the amount that the Commission had paid to the applicant by way of damages following the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission (T-19/07, ECR, EU:T:2010:526), annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-481/13, Systran v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2013, C 336, p. 27.