title: Judgment of the Court of 15 November 2013 in Case E-9/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 15 November 2013
   in Case E-9/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers)
   2014/C 88/08
   In Case E-9/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 16a of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 November 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 16a of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers), as adapted by the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Appeal brought on 31 July 1998 by CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl against the judgment delivered on 9 June 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97 between Unifrigo Gadus Srl and CPL Imperial 2 SpA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-299/98 P)

text:
C 299/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
    1. The Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating            Appeal brought on 31 July 1998 by CPL Imperial 2 SpA
        to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty             and Unifrigo Gadus Srl against the judgment delivered on
        (IV/C 33.833 Ð Cartonboard) notified to the                9 June 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
        appellant on 5 August 1994 and published in the            Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
        Official Journal of the European Communities on            T-10/97 and T-11/97 between Unifrigo Gadus Srl and
        19 September 1998 is void in so far as it concerns         CPL Imperial 2 SpA and the Commission of the European
        the appellant,                                                                      Communities
                                                                                (Case C-299/98 P)
        or, in the alternative,
                                                                                (98/C 299/37)
        the fine is reduced.
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 June 1998
    2. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the                by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
        proceedings.                                               European Communities in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/
                                                                   97 Unifrigo Gadus Srl and CPL Imperial 2 SpA v. the
2. In the further alternative:                                     Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 31 July 1998 by CPL Imperial 2 SpA, established in
    set aside the contested judgment and refer the case            Pescara (Italy), and Unifrigo Gadus Srl, established in
    back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.              Naples (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the
                                                                   Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II.
Ð Infringement of the obligation to give reasons for               The appellant claims that the Court should:
    decisions in individual cases under Article 190 of the
    EC Treaty: the Court of First Instance found an                Ð allow the appeal,
    infringement of the obligation to state reasons in
    regard to the criteria for determining and calculating
                                                                   Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 9 June 1998 by the
    the amount of the fine, but did not reach the
                                                                       Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance in
    mandatory legal conclusion that the decision was void.
                                                                       Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97, and consequently
    The Court thereby wrongly laid down legal rules for
                                                                       annul the Commission's decision of 8 October 1996,
    the future without applying them in the case before it.
    As it is a matter of the objective application of the
    law, no significance can be attributed to the                      in the alternative:
    Commission's subjective knowledge at the time when
    it adopted its decision,                                       Ð declare that that decision does not have the effect of
                                                                       establishing whether or not the conditions for waiver
Ð error in exercising discretion when interpreting and                 of the right to recover post-clearance duties in
    applying Article 15(2) of Council Regulation No 17:                question were fulfilled, which it is for the national
    the grant of two-thirds reductions in the fine for an              court to decide,
    admission' or one third for a failure to contest' the
    essential allegations is devoid of any legal basis and             in any event
    infringes fundamental rights of defence of the parties
    concerned,
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal.
in the alternative:
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð when interpreting and applying Article 15(2) of                  The judgment of the Court of First Instance is challenged
    Regulation No 17 in regard to the turnover relevant            by CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl on the
    for calculating the fines the Court included the               following grounds:
    turnover of third party undertakings and thereby erred
    in law,
                                                                   Ð breach of the rights of the defence, since the Court of
                                                                       First Instance found that it was not necessary for the
Ð error of law in applying Article 15(2) of Regulation                 Commission to ascertain whether the case submitted
    No 17, having regard to the absence of effects of price            to it contained all the information necessary for
    collusion on the market,                                           consideration of the case, especially since the parties
                                                                       concerned played absolutely no part in the
Ð error of appraisal and discrimination in arbitrarily                 proceedings,
    rounding up the fine after applying the calculation
    method under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.                Ð breach of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 1697/79 (1) and Article 220(2)(b) of Council
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), by introducing a
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 299/25
    condition not provided for by the definitive list                consequences set out therein take effect even in the
    contained in those provisions,                                   absence of any corresponding provision of national law?
                                                                     (1) OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 213.
Ð breach of the principle that no one is bound to do the
    impossible', in that it held their failure to discharge an
    impossible burden of proof to be decisive,
Ð breach of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
    No 1697/79 and Article 220 of Regulation (EEC)
    No 2913/92, in that it interpreted those provisions as           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
    meaning that the customs authorities did not commit              gericht (Federal Social Court) by order of that Court of
    an error' when the undue payment was consistent                 13 May 1998 in the Case of Manfred Sehrer v. Bundes-
    with the declaration made by the exporter, and                   knappschaft (Federal Pension Fund for Miners),
    therefore there was an induced' error,                          intervener: Landesversicherungsanstalt für das Saarland
                                                                           (Regional Insurance Institution for the Saarland)
                                                                                (Case C-302/98)
Ð breach of the principle of protection of legitimate
    expectations. The Court of First Instance upheld the                                        (98/C 299/39)
    unusual concept of commercial risk' to be borne by
    all traders, although well aware that it is possible for
    the customs authorities to alter their findings,                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Bundessozialge-
                                                                     richt (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 1998, which was
Ð infringement of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty, in
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 3 August 1998, for a
    that, by declaring that a customs' risk existed, it
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the Case of Manfred Sehrer v. Bun-
    upheld the need for a disguised restriction on trade
                                                                     desknappschaft, intervener: Landesversicherungsanstalt für
    between Member States,
                                                                     das Saarland on the following question.
Ð breach of the principle ne bis in idem and of Article 5
                                                                     Do Articles 6 and 48 to 51 of the Treaty establishing the
    of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 and
                                                                     European Community and Article 3 of Council Regulation
    Article 220 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, in that
                                                                     (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), on the application of social security
    it did not annul the Decision, or even the part of the
                                                                     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
    Decision authorising recovery of duties relating to a
                                                                     and to members of their families moving within the
    customs slip which had already been paid by CPL
                                                                     Community, preclude national rules under which the
    Imperial 2 SpA.
                                                                     whole of a supplementary French pension paid on the
                                                                     basis of a collective agreement is subject to contributions
(1) OJ L 197, 3.8.1979, p. 1.                                        by the pensioner both to the French sickness insurance
(2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.                                      scheme and to the German sickness insurance scheme?
                                                                     (1) Official Journal, English Special Edition, First Series II, p. 416.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements-
rechtbank, The Hague in the Case of Parfums Christian
            Dior SA against Tuk Consultancy BV
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social
                       (Case C-300/98)                               del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valen-
                         (98/C 299/38)                               ciana by order of that court of 10 July 1998 in the Case
                                                                     of SIMAP (Sindicato de MeÂdicos de Sanidad de Asistencia
                                                                     PuÂblica) against the Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de
                                                                                la Generalitat Valenciana
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Arrondisse-                                           (Case C-303/98)
mentsrechtbank (District Court), The Hague, of 25 June
                                                                                (98/C 299/40)
1998, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the Case of Parfums Christian Dior
SA against Tuk Consultancy BV on the following question.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Sala de lo Social
Is Article 50(6) of the Agreement on trade-related aspects           del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valen-
of intellectual property rights (1) to be interpreted as             ciana (Chamber for Labour Matters of the High Court of
having direct effect in the sense that the legal                     Justice of the Valencia Community) of 10 July 1998,


title: Case C-185/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/24/EC — Electronic communications — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-185/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Electronic communications - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 80/10
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Balta and U. Jonsson, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and A. Engman, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.


title: Case T-848/16: Action brought on 1 December 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/41

         Action brought on 1 December 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V)
   (Case T-848/16)
   (2017/C 038/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States of America)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (representation ‘V’) — Application No 10 345 403

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 2129/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 151(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of the principles of legal security, of sound administration, of equal treatment and of non-retroactivity.


title: Case C-92/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Standstill and non-discrimination rules — Obligation to pay charges in order to obtain or extend a residence permit — Proportionality of the charges to be paid — Comparison with charges paid by citizens of the Union — Article 9 of the Association Agreement — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol — Articles 10(1) and 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/2

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
      (Case C-92/07) (1)

      (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Standstill and non-discrimination rules - Obligation to pay charges in order to obtain or extend a residence permit - Proportionality of the charges to be paid - Comparison with charges paid by citizens of the Union - Article 9 of the Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol - Articles 10(1) and 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)
      (2010/C 161/02)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Kuijper and S. Boelaert, Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 and concluded on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1973 C 113), of Article 41 of the Additional Protocol, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 113), and of Articles 10(1) and 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association — Discriminatory administrative charges in respect of residence permits

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by introducing and maintaining a system for the issue of residence permits providing for charges which are disproportionate in relation to those imposed on nationals of Member States for the issue of similar documents, and by applying that system to Turkish nationals who have a right of residence in the Netherlands on the basis of:

                              —

                              the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other hand, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963;

                              —

                              the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972; and of

                              —

                              Decision No 1/80, adopted on 19 September 1980 by the Association Council, set up by the Association Agreement and consisting, on the one hand, of members of the Governments of the Member States, of the Council of the European Union and of the Commission of the European Communities and, on the other hand, of members of the Turkish Government, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that Association Agreement, Article 41 of that Additional Protocol and Articles 10(1) and 13 of Decision No 1/80;

                  2.

                  Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-688/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2015 by Peter Schönberger against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 September 2015 in Case F-14/12 RENV, Schönberger v Court of Auditors

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/27

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2015 by Peter Schönberger against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 September 2015 in Case F-14/12 RENV, Schönberger v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-688/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by O.Mader, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of 30 September 2015 in Schönberger v Court of Auditors (F-14/12 RENV, ECRFP, EU:F:2015:112).
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the misapplication of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal
               The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) misapplied Article 81 of its Rules of Procedure in the contested decision and thereby infringed the appellant’s right to be heard and to a fair trial.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging replacement of the grounds as a result of the consideration of arguments which were submitted late
               According to the appellant, the CST effected a replacement of grounds in so far as it relied on arguments which were presented by the defendant out of time.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the distortion of facts
               According to the appellant, the CST distorted the position of the Court of Auditors in so far as it maintained in the contested decision that the latter held that a comparison of the appellant's merits with those of the other officials eligible for promotion would not have resulted in the appellant’s promotion, although the Court of Auditors merely declared that the appellant would not be automatically promoted if a greater number of posts were available.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging erroneous application of a promotion criterion
               The appellant further claims that, when assessing his merits, the CST wrongly applied a promotion criterion which exceeds the criteria of the Court of Auditors and which is unnecessarily strict in so far as evidence was required to show that the appellant was one of the 53 officials eligible for promotion with the greatest merits.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging erroneous comparative assessment of the degree of responsibility exercised
               Furthermore, the appellant claims that the comparative assessment of his level of responsibility was undertaken by the CST without a factual basis and wrongly assumes an automatic priority for Heads of Unit.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of the applicable promotion rate
               The appellant claims in that regard that the question of the applicable promotion rate concerns the substance of the dispute. It should, therefore, not have been dealt with in the context of the examination of admissibility.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the principle of equal treatment
               Finally, the appellant claims that the CST applied the principle of equal treatment wrongly and inconsistently with settled case-law in so far as it disregarded the fact that that principle is infringed where institutions exceed their margin of discretion and arbitrarily adopted measures which infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.


title: Case T-628/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/33

         Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)
   (Case T-628/15)
   (2016/C 007/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, E. Montelione, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BiancalunA’ — Application for registration No 11 246 204

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2720/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and/or

               —

               remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjama’s, t-shirts, panties, undues.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison.


title: Case C-452/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 9 November 2006 — The Queen on the application of Synthon BV v Licensing Authority, Interested Party: Smithkline Beecham plc

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/40

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 9 November 2006 — The Queen on the application of Synthon BV v Licensing Authority, Interested Party: Smithkline Beecham plc
   (Case C-452/06)
   (2006/C 326/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Synthon BV

      Defendant: Licensing Authority

      Interested Party: Smithkline Beecham plc
   Questions referred

               1.

               Where:

                           —

                           a Member State (‘the concerned Member State’) receives an application pursuant to Article 28 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) (‘the Directive’) for mutual recognition, in the concerned Member State of a marketing authorisation of a medicinal product (‘the Product’) granted by another Member State (‘the reference Member State’);

                           —

                           such marketing authorisation was granted by the reference Member State pursuant to the abridged application procedure in Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of the Directive on the grounds that the Product is essentially similar to another medicinal product which has already been authorised within the EU for the requisite period (‘the Reference Product’);

                           —

                           the concerned Member State operates a procedure for validation of the application during which it checks that the application contains the particulars and documents required by Articles 8, 10(1)(a)(iii) and 28 of the Directive, including that the particulars provided are compatible with the legal basis upon which the application is submitted;

                                       (a)

                                       is it compatible with the Directive and in particular Article 28 for the concerned Member State to check that the Product is essentially similar to the Reference Product (without carrying out any substantive assessment), to refuse to accept and review the application and not proceed to recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State on the grounds that in its opinion the Product is not essentially similar to the Reference Product? or

                                       (b)

                                       is the concerned Member State obliged to recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State within 90 days of receipt of the application and the assessment report pursuant to Article 28(4) of the Directive unless the concerned Member State invokes the procedure set out in Articles 29 to 34 of the Directive (which is applicable where there are grounds for supposing that the marketing authorisation of the Product may present a risk to public health within the meaning of Article 29 of the Directive).

               2.

               If the answer to question 1(a) is no and the answer to question 1(b) is yes, where the concerned Member State rejects the application at the validation stage on the grounds that the Product is not essentially similar to the Reference Product, and thereby fails to recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State or to invoke the procedure set out in Articles 29 to 34 of the Directive, does the failure by the concerned Member State to recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State in the circumstances referred to above amount to a sufficiently serious breach of Community law within the meaning of the second condition in the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame. Alternatively, what factors ought the national court to take into consideration when it comes to determine whether such failure amounts to a sufficiently serious breach?

               3.

               Where the failure of the concerned Member State to recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State as set out in question 1 above is based on a general policy adopted by the concerned Member State that different salts of the same active moiety cannot, as a matter of law, be considered essentially similar, does the failure by the concerned Member State to recognise the marketing authorisation granted by the reference Member State in the circumstances referred to above amount to a sufficiently serious breach of Community law within the meaning of the second condition in the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame. Alternatively what factors ought the national court to take into consideration when it comes to determine whether such failure amounts to a sufficiently serious breach?

      (1)  OJ L 311, p. 67


title: Case C-421/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Signs capable of constituting a trade mark — Distinctive character — Representation, by design, of the layout of a flagship store — Registration as a trade mark for ‘services’ connected with the products on sale in such a store)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-421/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Signs capable of constituting a trade mark - Distinctive character - Representation, by design, of the layout of a flagship store - Registration as a trade mark for ‘services’ connected with the products on sale in such a store))
   2014/C 315/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Apple Inc.

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the representation, by a design alone, without indicating the size or the proportions, of the layout of a retail store, may be registered as a trade mark for services consisting in services relating to those goods but which do not form an integral part of the offer for sale thereof, provided that the sign is capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant for registration from those of other undertakings; and, that registration is not precluded by any of the grounds for refusal set out in that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-411/12: Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/36

         Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)
   (Case T-411/12)
   2012/C 366/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision corrigendum (of the decision of 2 May 2012) of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2012 in Case R 767/2011-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alliance Healthcare France SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PHARMASTREET’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — application for Community trade mark No 8 658 445

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘PHARMASEE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 42 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition is upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal is granted and the decision of the Opposition Division is annulled

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-284/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — EMS-Bulgaria Transport OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT — Principle of effectiveness — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — EMS-Bulgaria Transport OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv
   (Case C-284/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT - Principle of effectiveness - Refusal of the right to deduct VAT - Principle of fiscal neutrality)
   2012/C 287/24
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EMS-Bulgaria Transport OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad — Interpretation of Articles 179, 180 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of the principle of effectiveness pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 Ecotrade and Others — Right to deduct input VAT — National legislation making the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to a limitation period of three tax periods following that in which the right to deduct arose — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT on account of failure to comply with the obligation of voluntary VAT registration as an intra-Community purchaser and of failure to exercise the right to deduct within the time-limit

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 179, Article 180 and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it does not render the exercise of that right excessively difficult or impossible in practice. It is for the national court to carry out such an assessment and it may take into account, inter alia, a subsequent considerable extension of the limitation period and the duration of a value added tax registration procedure which had to be completed within that same period for it to be possible to exercise that right to deduct.

               2.

               The principle of fiscal neutrality precludes a penalty consisting in a refusal of the right to deduct if VAT is accounted for belatedly, but does not preclude the payment of default interest, provided that that penalty complies with the principle of proportionality, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-434/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Václav Hrbek trading as BODY-HF v OHMI — The Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/33

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Václav Hrbek trading as BODY-HF v OHMI — The Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)
   (Case T-434/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Václav Hrbek trading as BODY-HF (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2010 in case R 1441/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to reject opposition No B1276692 and to allow the application No 5779351 for registration in its entirety;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT’, for goods in classes 18, 24, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 5779351

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2165017 of the figurative mark ‘alpine’, for goods in classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 65(2) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misused its power by the ruling of the contested decision as it lacks objectivity and legal basis, and erroneously applied the criteria to establish a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trademark and the contested trademark.


title: Case T-178/01: Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Di Lenardo Adriano s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Di Lenardo Adriano                            —     introducing ex novo the condition set forth at
 s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities                                Article 6(c) of Regulation No 896/200 of not being
                                                                                related to another traditional operator;
                          (Case T-178/01)                                       —     using Article 143 of the Customs Code as a pre-
                                                                                sumption juris et de jure in order to prevent new
                                                                                operators gaining access to the market in bananas.
                          (2001/C 289/74)
                                                                           —    infringement of the first and third paragraphs of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                             Article 3b (now Article 5) of the EC Treaty, as well as
                                                                                breach of the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                                and legitimate expectations, and infringement of the first
                                                                                and second paragraphs of Article F (now Article 6) of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       Treaty on European Union. The applicant argues in this
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      respect that the Commission has infringed the applicant’s
European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Di Lenardo                              property rights and the right to pursue a professional
Adriano s.r.l., represented by Aldo Bozzi, Claudia M.R. Gatti                   activity, having gone beyond what is necessary to achieve
and Bruno Telchini, lawyers.                                                    the objectives of the Community. Moreover, the prin-
                                                                                ciples of legal certainty and legitimate expectations have
                                                                                been infringed inasmuch as the new category of operators
                                                                                applies ex tunc.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    breach of the principle of non-discrimination, guaranteed
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of                           under Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty
      7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the                    —    infringement of Article 85 (now Article 81) and Article 86
      arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-                          (now Article 82) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as the
      munity;                                                                   contested regulation prevents competition between tra-
                                                                                ditional operators, creating a situation in the banana
                                                                                market which amounts to a de facto derogation from
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    Article 82.
Pleas in law and main arguments
For over 20 years the applicant company has been marketing                 Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Dilexport s.r.l. against
third-country bananas, having been recognised as a traditional                     Commission of the European Communities
operator A/B since the entry into force of Regulation
No 404/93. However, from 1 July 2001 it has been refused,                                          (Case T-179/01)
on the basis of the contested regulation, the chance to operate
in the banana importing sector either in respect of the quota
reserved for traditional operators (83 %) or of the quota                                          (2001/C 289/75)
reserved for non-traditional operators (17 %).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     infringement of Regulation No 404/93, as well as of                  European Communities on 30 July 2001 by Dilexport s.r.l.,
      Article 4 (now Article 7) of the EC Treaty. The applicant            represented by Aldo Bozzi, Claudia M.R. Gatti and Bruno
      claims in this respect that the Commission encroached                Telchini, lawyers.
      on the competencies which properly belong to the
      Council by:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      —     introducing ex novo a category of banana operator
            altogether foreign to the Council regulations;                 —    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 (1) of
                                                                                7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the
      —     introducing the concept of ‘primary imports’ as the                 arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-
            test for traditional operators;                                     munity;


title: Case C-471/13: Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-471/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/40
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23. 11. 2013.


title: Case T-26/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2005 — GeoLogistics BV v Commission (Customs Union — External Community transit operations — Meat destined for Morocco — Fraud — Application for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Fairness clause — Special situation — No deception or obvious negligence)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2005 — GeoLogistics BV v Commission
   (Case T-26/03) (1)

   (Customs Union - External Community transit operations - Meat destined for Morocco - Fraud - Application for remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Fairness clause - Special situation - No deception or obvious negligence)
   (2005/C 281/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): GeoLogistics BV (Schiphol Rijk, Netherlands) (represented initially by H. de Bie and K. Schellaars, and subsequently by H. De Bie and A. Huizing, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis, Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): Kingdom of Spain (represented by L. Fraguas Gadea and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogados del Estado)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision REM 08/00 of 7 October 2002 declaring there to be no grounds for the applicant to be granted remission of import duties, as requested in the application submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Decision REM 08/00 of 7 October 2002 in so far as it refuses to remit the import duties for which the applicant was found liable in respect of customs operations carried out by it on or after 12 June 1995;

               2)

               Order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-645/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 1(1) and 6(1) — Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Undue payment made by a State entity — Claim for recovery of that payment in legal proceedings — Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claims are connected — Close connection between the claims — Defendant domiciled in a non-member State)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown
   (Case C-645/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 1(1) and 6(1) - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Undue payment made by a State entity - Claim for recovery of that payment in legal proceedings - Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claims are connected - Close connection between the claims - Defendant domiciled in a non-member State)
   2013/C 156/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Berlin

      Defendant: Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Inclusion or not of an action for repayment of an amount unduly paid by a State body in an administrative procedure intended to compensate for damage caused by the Nazi regime

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ includes an action for recovery of an amount unduly paid in the case where a public body is required, by an authority established by a law providing compensation in respect of acts of persecution carried out by a totalitarian regime, to pay to a victim, by way of compensation, part of the proceeds of the sale of land, has, as the result of an unintentional error, paid to that person the entire sale price, and subsequently brings legal proceedings seeking to recover the amount unduly paid.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a close connection, within the meaning of that provision, between claims lodged against several defendants domiciled in other Member States in the case where the latter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rely on rights to additional compensation which it is necessary to determine on a uniform basis.

               3.

               Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to apply to defendants who are not domiciled in another Member State, in the case where they are sued in proceedings brought against several defendants, some of who are also persons domiciled in the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case C-344/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Joël De Bry (Appeal — Official — Reporting procedure — Career development report — 2001/2002 reporting period — Rights of the defence — Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Joël De Bry
   (Case C-344/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Official - Reporting procedure - Career development report - 2001/2002 reporting period - Rights of the defence - Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 326/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M.H. Kraemer, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Joël De Bry (represented by: S. Orlandi, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (single judge) in Case T-157/04 De Bry v Commission, setting aside the decision of 26 May 2003 drawing up the appellant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-157/04 De Bry v Commission, in so far as it set aside the Commission decision of 26 May 2003 making definitive the career development report of Mr De Bry in respect of the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 on the ground of a breach of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, on the ground of inconsistency between some descriptive comments and the corresponding numerical mark, as regards the criticism of failure to comply with working hours;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs in connection with the present proceedings and those incurred in the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-77/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/22

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v Commission
   (Case T-77/08)
   (2008/C 116/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, substantially reduce its fine; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a single and continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the chloroprene rubber sector.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the facts and erred in law in holding the applicant liable for the infringement of the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish that the applicant had a decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers. Furthermore, the applicant contends that it did not form a single economic unit with DuPont Dow Elastomers.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts, erred in law and failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision:

               —

               in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 even though the duration of the infringement was only six years and one month;

               —

               in increasing the fine to be imposed on the applicant by 10 % for sufficient deterrent effect; and

               —

               in not granting the applicant the maximum available leniency reduction of 30 %.


title: Case F-129/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2012 — BH v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2012 — BH v Commission
   (Case F-129/11) (1)

   2012/C 287/78
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 73.


title: Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-252/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 248/7
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
    European Communities against the French Republic
                           Case C-252/95 )                               — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                              in order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC ( 1 )
                            ( 95/C 248/ 13 )
                                                                              of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                              procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
An action against the French Republic was brought before                      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           obligations under the third paragraph of Articles 189 of
20 July 1995 by the Commission of the European                                the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44 ( 1 ) of the
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, acting as                           said Directive,
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                        — declare, in the alternative, that by failing promptly to
Kirchberg .                                                                   communicate to the Commission the texts of the
                                                                              relevant provisions transposing the Directive, the
                                                                              Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  obligations,
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   costs .
     comply, as regards epizootic haemorrhagic disease
     of deer, with Council Directive 92/119/EEC ( ] ) of
     17 December 1992 introducing general Community                      The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
     measures for the control of certain ainmal diseases and             the same as those in Case C-252/95 ; the time-limit for
     specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease,              transposition expired on 1 July 1993 .
     and/or by failing to communicate them to the
     Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            (!) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
     obligations under Article 27 of the abovementioned
     directive and under the Treaty;
2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
                                                                         Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) by order of
                                                                         that court of 21 March 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) S. Agri snc
The binding nature of the third subparagraph of Article 189                      and (2 ) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto
and the first subparagraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty
requires the Member States to adopt the measures necessary                                          Case C-255/95 )
to transpose into national law the directives addressed to                                           ( 95/C 248/15 )
them before the expiration of the time-limit set for that
purpose . When the deadline set in Article 27 ( 1 ) of Directive         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 92/119/EEC expired on 30 September 1993 , France had not                European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
taken the necessary measures as regards the control of                   Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) ( Fourth
epizootic haemorrhagic disease of deer.                                  Chamber of the Council of State, Judicial Division ) of
                                                                         21 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
 (!) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                               on 24 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         (1 ) S. Agri snc and ( 2 ) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto
                                                                         on the following questions :
                                                                          1 . is a provision of national law which, in the event of a
                                                                               period of time elapsing between the end of the reference
                                                                               period and the beginning of the period of the
 Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                       undertaking, takes into account not only the output ( the
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of                          number of units of lifestock ) for the reference period, in
                                Germany                                        relation to output to be achieved during the period of the
                          ( Case C-253/95 )                                    undertaking, but also fluctuations in output occurring
                             ( 95/C 248/ 14 )
                                                                               during that intermediate period, compatible with the
                                                                               Community legal order, in particular Article lb ( 3 ) ( c ) of
                                                                               Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 797/85 ( ] ) of 12 March
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                         1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           structures, inserted by Article 1 of Council Regulation
 Communities on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                          ( EEC ) No 1094/88 ( 2 ) of 25 April 1988 , and with
 European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt,                         Articles 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), 7 and 10 ( 1 ) of Commission
 of the Legal Service, with an address for service in                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 4115/88 ( 3 ) of 21 December 1988
 Luxembourg at the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner                       laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to
 Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      promote the extension of production ?


title: Case C-195/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenats (Austria) lodged on  27 April 2006  — Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenats (Austria) lodged on 27 April 2006 — Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)
   (Case C-195/06)
   (2006/C 178/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundeskommunikationssenats (Austria)
   Party to the main proceedings
   Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 1(f) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, in the version of Directive 97/36/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities be interpreted to the effect that ‘teleshopping’ includes broadcasts or parts of broadcasts in which the broadcaster offers viewers the opportunity to participate in the broadcaster's prize games by means of immediately dialling premium rate telephone numbers, and thus in return for payment?

               2.

               In the event that the answer to that question is no: should Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, in the version of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, be interpreted to the effect that ‘television advertising’ includes announcements in broadcasts or parts of broadcasts where the broadcaster offers viewers the opportunity to participate in the broadcaster's prize games by means of immediately dialling premium rate telephone numbers, and thus in return for payment?

      (1)  OJ 298, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 202, p. 60.


title: Case F-113/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2012 — AT v EACEA (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Evaluation report — Definitive nature — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — Early termination of fixed-term employment contract on ground of incompetence — Review by the courts — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/26

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2012 — AT v EACEA
   (Case F-113/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Evaluation report - Definitive nature - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - Early termination of fixed-term employment contract on ground of incompetence - Review by the courts - Manifest error of assessment)
   2012/C 138/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AT (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: EACEA (represented by: F. Couplan and D. Homann, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 June to 31 December 2008; second, for annulment of the contracting authority’s decision to terminate the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract before its due date; and, third, for compensation for damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AT to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 72, p. 35.


title: Case C-25/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge (Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Inheritance tax — Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies — Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked — Restriction — Justification)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge
   (Case C-25/10) (1)

   (Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Inheritance tax - Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies - Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked - Restriction - Justification)
   2011/C 103/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 18, 45, 49 and 54 TFEU — Succession duties — Refusal to apply the reduced rate applicable to legacies to non-profit-making associations and ‘public-interest foundations’ in cases where those associations and foundations have their seat in a Member State other than that in which the deceased person resided or worked — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Restriction of the freedom of establishment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State which reserves application of succession duties at the reduced rate to non-profit-making bodies which have their centre of operations in that Member State or in the Member State in which, at the time of death, the deceased actually resided or had his place of work, or in which he had previously actually resided or had his place of work.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 December 2000 in Case T-77/95 DEP Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 118/36                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl, established in Padua
                                                                           (Italy), applicant in Case T-117/98, represented by W. Viscar-
                       of 7 December 2000                                  dini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                           E. Arendt, 8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt, the applicant in Case
in Case T-77/95 DEP Union française de l’express (Ufex)                    T-79/96 supported by the Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                           and F. Quadri), against Commission of the European Com-
                               ties (1)                                    munities (Agents: in Case T-79/96, E. de March, in Case
                                                                           T-260/97, H. van Vliet and A. Dal Ferro and, in Case
                         (Taxation of costs)                               T-117/98, F. Ruggeri Laderchi, H. van Vliet and A. Dal Ferro)
                                                                           and Council of the European Union, defendant in Case
                         (2001/C 118/101)                                  T-260/97 (Agents: J.P. Hix and A. Tanca), supported by French
                                                                           Republic (Agents: in Case T-79/96, C. de Salins and M. F. Pascal,
                                                                           and, in Case T-260/97, K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) —
                    (Language of the case: French)                         application for, first, in Case T-79/96, a declaration that the
                                                                           Commission unlawfully failed to take measures, on the basis
                                                                           of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of
In Case T-77/95 DEP: Union française de l’express (Ufex),
                                                                           13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market
formerly Syndicat français de l’express international (SFEI),
                                                                           in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), which would have enabled
established in Roissy-en-France, France, DHL International,
                                                                           the applicant to obtain supplies of bananas from third
established in Roissy-en-France, Service CRIE, established in
                                                                           countries following the situation resulting from the civil
Paris, France, and May Courier, established in Paris, represented
                                                                           war in Somalia; in Case T-260/97, for annulment of the
by E. Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and J. Derenne, of the
                                                                           Commission’s decision of 17 July 1997 rejecting the applicant’s
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                           request seeking, by virtue of Article 30 of that regulation,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-
                                                                           transitional measures to allow the annual quantity allocated to
Croix, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           it for obtaining import licences for bananas from non-
R. Lyal and J.-Y. Art) — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                           traditional ACP countries to be calculated in relation to the
be reimbursed by the defendant to the applicants following
                                                                           quantities which it marketed during 1988, 1989 and 1990;
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2000 in
                                                                           and, in Case T-117/98, for annulment of the Commission’s
Case T-77/95 Ufex and Others v Commission [2000] ECR
                                                                           decision of 23 April 1998 rejecting the applicants’ request for
II-0000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                           an adjustment, pursuant to Article 16(3) of that regulation, of
composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                                                                           the tariff quota for banana imports for the first half of 1998 in
J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                           order to take account of the consequences of the floods which
7 December 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           occurred in Somalia on and after 28 October 1997; and, in all
                                                                           three cases, for compensation for the damage allegedly caused,
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to the        in Case T-79/96, by the Commission’s conduct, and allegedly
applicants shall be fixed at BEF 4 500 000.                                suffered, in Cases T-260/97 and T-117/98, as a result of the
                                                                           Commission’s rejections of their requests, the Court of First
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.1995.
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                           President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio
                                                                           González, Administrator, made an order on 6 December 2000
                                                                           the operative part of which is as follows:
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 1)    The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs, as well as
                                                                                those incurred by Camar in Case T-79/96 R.
                       of 6 December 2000
in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, Camar
srl and Tico srl against the Commission of the European                    2)    The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs in Case
    Communities and Council of the European Union (1)                            T-260/97 R and 90 % of those incurred by Camar in the
                                                                                same case.
                    (Failure to take measures)
                         (2001/C 118/102)
                                                                           3)    The Council shall bear its own costs in Case T-260/97 R.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, Camar srl,                 4)    Camar shall bear 10 % of the costs it incurred in Case
established in Florence (Italy), applicant in Cases T-79/96,                     T-260/97 R.


title: Case T-36/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014  — St’art and Others v Commission

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/42

         Action brought on 15 January 2014 — St’art and Others v Commission
   (Case T-36/14)
   2014/C 135/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measures:

                           —

                           either the European Commission’s decision of an unknown date to terminate the project ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to end, as a consequence, the award of the subsidy granted to the consortium created by the applicants;

                           —

                           or the decision confirming that, adopted on 29 November 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the lawyers’ fees and pre-trial work.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the right to be treated fairly and of the general principle that agreements and contractual terms and conditions must be performed in good faith, in so far as the reasoning provided by the Commission is incorrect and or none of the terms and conditions for terminating the contract are met. The applicants claim that the fact that the objectives which the project was to meet were met by other means, thereby depriving the project of its objective, is not a valid reason to terminate the subsidy contract.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations.


title: Case T-223/14: Action brought on 9 April 2014  — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/35

         Action brought on 9 April 2014 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)
   (Case T-223/14)
   2014/C 184/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ewald Dörken AG (Herdecke, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolfram Schürmann (Neuhausen, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2014 in Case R 2156/2012-4 and alter the contested decision to the effect that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2014 in Case R 2156/2012-4 with regard to the goods in Class 6: ‘metal sheets for construction purposes’ and Class [1]7: ‘underlay sheets’ and alter the contested decision to the effect that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed with regard to those goods;

               —

               Order the defendant 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: the word mark ‘VENT ROLL’ for goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19 — Community trade mark No 3 817 491

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Wolfram Schürmann

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and relative ground for invalidity of a mark registered by an agent without the proprietor’s consent pursuant to Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 40(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 76 and 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rules 37(b)(iv) and 57 of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(a)(iii) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(a)(iii) and (b)(i) of Regulation No 2868/95


title: Case T-47/00: Action brought on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicant alleges:                                                   — misuse of powers: the importation of EU/OCT sugar and
                                                                             mixtures from the OCTs arises directly from the OCT
— infringement of the rights of defence and the principle of                 decision, and is a result intended by the Council;
    open administration;
                                                                         — the declaration that Article 308d of Regulation
— infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Articles                 No 2454/93 is applicable is incompatible with Article 109
    5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2943/95;                                   of the OCT decision.
— infringement of the principle of proportionality;
— misuse of power.
                                                                         Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European                                                   (Case T-48/00)
                           Communities
                                                                                (2000/C 135/41)
                          (Case T-47/00)
                         (2000/C 135/40)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 2000 by British Steel
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Limited, represented by John Pheasant and Matthew Readings,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
(Free Zone) NV, a company incorporated under the laws of
Aruba, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by G. van
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.                  — annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 8 December
                                                                             1999, C(1999) 4154 final;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul Article 1 of this decision;
— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of
    15 November 1999 introducing safeguard measures in                   — annul the fine imposed in respect of Article 1;
    respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures
    of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30                — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in respect of
    and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and                 Article 1;
    territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11);
                                                                         — order the Commission to repay the fine or, in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     alternative, the amount by which it is reduced together
                                                                             with interest on the whole or, as the case may be, such
                                                                             amount by which it is reduced from the date of payment by
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                         British Steel to the date of repayment by the Commission;
— Regulation No 2423/1999 is incomprehensible; at any                    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs in these
    rate, it contains an insufficient statement of reasons: in               proceedings.
    support of the safeguard measures, the Commission cites
    difficulties in respect of which no details are given;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— manifest errors with regard to the facts;
— the fixing of a minimum price for imports of EU/OCT                    In the contested decision the Commission held that several
    sugar from the OCTs constitutes an infringement of Article           producers of seamless steel tubes infringed Article 81 (1) EC
    109(1) and (2) of the OCT decision;                                  and imposed a fine, inter alia, on the applicant.