title: Case T-193/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Gόrażdże Cement v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/36

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Gόrażdże Cement v Commission
   (Case T-193/07)
   (2007/C 170/70)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Gόrażdże Cement S.A. (Chorula, Poland) (represented by: R. Forbes, Solicitor and P. Muñiz, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits five grounds on the basis of which the Commission decision of 26 March 2007 rejecting the national allocation plan (hereinafter ‘the NAP’) for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and Council (1) (hereinafter ‘the Directive’) should be invalidated:

               a)

               The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 9(3) of the Directive since a negative decision could only have been taken within three months of the NAP notification. The applicant further claims that it had a legitimate expectation that any rejection decision would have been adopted within three months, and that the NAP should be considered as having been accepted at the expiry of this deadline.

               b)

               The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to Articles 9(3) and 11(2) of the Directive in that it restricts the type of amendments that can be proposed by the Member State concerned and, in particular, since it allegedly prevents amendments to the total amount of allowances. However, according to the applicant, the Directive does not limit the freedom of Member States to propose amendments.

               c)

               According to the applicant the contested decision usurps the Member State's competence as it leads to the Commission effectively unilaterally deciding on the final content of the NAP. This infringes the distribution of competences in Articles 9 and 11 of the Directive, as well as Article 10 EC on the principle of loyal cooperation.

               d)

               Moreover, the applicant contends that the contested decision has incorrectly applied criteria 2 and 3 in Annex III to the Directive by not trying on the most representative emission figures which led to an error of assessment of the facts.

               e)

               Finally, the applicant claims that the contested decision has infringed Article 30(2)(i) and Criterion 1 in Annex III of the Directive ignoring the special situation of Poland as a new Member State and imposing stricter obligations than those required under the Kyoto Protocol.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case T-145/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kanyama v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures — Democratic Republic of the Congo — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kanyama v Council
   (Case T-145/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (La Gombe, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-179/11: Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/27

         Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)
   (Case T-179/11)
   2011/C 152/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: S. Fürst, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Overrule the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2011 in case R 364/2010-4;

               —

               Fix the total amount of costs to be paid by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SEVEN SUMMITS’, in colours blue and red, for amongst others goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6307243

      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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3489234 of the figurative mark ‘Seven’, for goods in classes 16 and 18; Community trade mark registration No 4783866 of the figurative mark ‘7Seven’, for goods in classes 16 and 18

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly determined the existence of likelihood of confusion.


title: Composition of the Grand Chamber

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/4

      Composition of the Grand Chamber
      (2010/C 288/06)
      On 14 September 2010, the General Court decided that, for the period from 20 September 2010 to 31 August 2013, the thirteen Judges who make up the Grand Chamber, in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, are the President of the General Court, the seven Presidents of Chambers from the Chambers to which the case is not assigned and the Judges of the Chamber (Extended Composition) who would have had to sit in the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber of five Judges.


title: Case T-523/12: Action brought on 30 November 2012 — Rani Refreshments/OHMI — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Action brought on 30 November 2012 — Rani Refreshments/OHMI — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)
   (Case T-523/12)
   2013/C 32/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

      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 27 September 2012 in case R 236/2012-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with its application and the decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Sani’ in green, willow green and white, for among others, goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9087479

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2587244 of the figurative mark in green, white, black and blue ‘Rani’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 4005211 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Rani’, for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2587293 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘RANI FLOAT’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 2587269 of the figurative mark in orange, yellow, black, white, red, pink, blue and green ‘Rani’, for goods in classes 16, 21 and 32; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1239206 of the figurative mark ‘rani’, for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-308/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of N.V. Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

text:
C 335/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
2.a) If the first question must be answered in the affirmative          2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned
      and therefore the shipment of waste oil with a PCB                     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly
      content of over 50 ppm must always be regarded as a                    ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of
      shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                    operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework
      raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of               Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,
      Regulation No 259/93 solely on account of the need to                  and if so which one?
      achieve self-sufficiency at national level without showing
      that self-sufficiency at national level is necessary to           3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
      achieve self-sufficiency at Community level?                           an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery
                                                                             within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
2.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such            Directive?
      a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
      principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible       3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
      with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European                operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
      Community?                                                             given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
                                                                             that operation or does neither of the two lists take
                                                                             precedence over the other?
( 1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
( 2) OJ 1987, L 42, p. 43.
                                                                        4.   Must the view of the competent authority of the Member
( 3) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
( 4) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                                   State of dispatch or of the Member State of destination
                                                                             be regarded as decisive as regards whether an operation
                                                                             must be classified as disposal or recovery?
                                                                        5.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a
                                                                             shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection to
                                                                             the shipment be raised pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on
                                                                             the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                             into and out of the European Community solely on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
                                                                             account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency at national
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
                                                                             level without showing that self-sufficiency at national
N.V. Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sond-
                                                                             level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at Community
ershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                             level?
and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
                          en Milieubeheer
                                                                        5.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such
                                                                             a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
                          (Case C-308/00)                                    principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
                                                                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                             Community?
                          (2000/C 335/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) OJ 1975, L 194, p. 39.
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the                   (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Slibverwerking
Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs-
und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-
                                                                        Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case
      ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
                                                                        of PPG Industries Fiber Glass B.V. and Minister van
      to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
      Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-
      use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-
      work Directive?                                                                            (Case C-309/00)
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the                                   (2000/C 335/48)
      above question? For the operation referred to therein to
      exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a
      treatment, can be used several times or can be taken              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      back?                                                             European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the


title: Case C-447/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Airline pilots — Collective agreement — Clause automatically terminating employment contracts at age 60)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-447/09) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Airline pilots - Collective agreement - Clause automatically terminating employment contracts at age 60)
   2011/C 319/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach

      Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Whether those rules are compatible with a collective agreement which provides, on grounds of air safety, that a pilot’s contract of employment terminates automatically at the end of the month in which that pilot reaches the age of 60

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may authorise, through rules to that effect, the social partners to adopt measures within the meaning of Article 2(5) in the areas referred to in that provision that fall within collective agreements on condition that those rules of authorisation are sufficiently precise so as to ensure that those measures fulfil the requirements set out in Article 2(5). A measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which fixes the age limit from which pilots may no longer carry out their professional activities at 60 whereas national and international legislation fixes that age at 65, is not a measure that is necessary for public security and protection of health, within the meaning of the said Article 2(5).
   Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a clause in a collective agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that fixes at 60 the age limit from which pilots are considered as no longer possessing the physical capabilities to carry out their professional activity while national and international legislation fix that age at 65.
   The first paragraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted to the effect that air traffic safety does not constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Joined Cases T-428/07 and T-455/07: Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2010 — CEVA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme in the field of ‘Quality of life and management of living resources (1998-2002)’ — Seahealth and Biopal projects — Debit notes — Applications for annulment — Reclassification of the actions — Admissibility — Rule that the parties should be heard and rights of the defence — Recovery of all the financial contributions paid by the European Union — Serious financial irregularities)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2010 — CEVA v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-428/07 and T-455/07) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contracts entered into under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme in the field of ‘Quality of life and management of living resources (1998-2002)’ - Seahealth and Biopal projects - Debit notes - Applications for annulment - Reclassification of the actions - Admissibility - Rule that the parties should be heard and rights of the defence - Recovery of all the financial contributions paid by the European Union - Serious financial irregularities)
   2010/C 209/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d'étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by L. Escobar Guerrero and W. Roels, then by W. Roels, acting as Agents, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, in Case T-428/07, of debit note No 3240908670 of 20 September 2007, relating to the Seahealth project and, in Case T-455/07, of debit note No 3240909271 of 4 October 2007, relating to the Biopal contract, and that the Commission be ordered to reimburse those debit notes in favour of CEVA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the other party.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-378/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 67 — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60(1) — Payment of family benefits where parents are divorced — Definition of the ‘person concerned’ — Law of a Member State providing for the payment of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his household — Residence of that parent in another Member State — Failure of that parent to claim family benefits — Possibility of entitlement of the other parent to claim those family benefits)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski
   (Case C-378/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 67 - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 60(1) - Payment of family benefits where parents are divorced - Definition of the ‘person concerned’ - Law of a Member State providing for the payment of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his household - Residence of that parent in another Member State - Failure of that parent to claim family benefits - Possibility of entitlement of the other parent to claim those family benefits))
   (2015/C 414/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen

      Defendant: Tomislaw Trapkowski

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 60(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the deeming provision included there may lead to the grant of entitlement to family benefits for a person who does not reside in the Member State responsible for paying those benefits where all the other conditions for the grant of those benefits laid down by national law are met, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Article 60(1), third sentence, of Regulation No 987/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that there is no requirement that the parent of the child for whom child benefits are paid, who resides in the Member State obliged to pay those benefits, must be granted entitlement to those benefits on the ground that the other parent, who resides in another Member State, has not applied for them.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case C-297/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2006/12/EC — Articles 4 and 5 — Waste management — Management plan — Integrated and adequate network of disposal installations — Danger for human health or the environment — Force majeure — Civil disturbances — Organised crime)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-297/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2006/12/EC - Articles 4 and 5 - Waste management - Management plan - Integrated and adequate network of disposal installations - Danger for human health or the environment - Force majeure - Civil disturbances - Organised crime)
   2010/C 113/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra, D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent and K. Bacon, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) — Region of Campania

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, for the region of Campania, all the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-264/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-267/12: Deutsche Bahn AG and Others v European Commission

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/25

         Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-267/12: Deutsche Bahn AG and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-264/16 P)
   (2016/C 243/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd (represented by: F. Montag, Rechtsanwalt, F. Hoseinian, avocat, M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 in case T-267/12 Deutsche Bahn AG and Others v European Commission;

               —

               annul Articles 1(2)(g), 1(3)(a), 1(3)(b) and 1(4)(h) of the Commission decision of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39462 – Freight Forwarding (the Decision) or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fines set out in Articles 2(2)(g), 2(3)(a), 2(3)(b) and 2(4)(h) of the Decision or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants rely on the five following grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The General Court errs in law in concluding that the Commission was entitled to rely on Deutsche Post's immunity application, that the principle of prohibition of double representation had not been breached and that the Commission did not have to investigate the potential breach of the said principle.

               2.

               The General Court errs in law in interpreting Article 1 of Regulation 141/62 (1) as not applicable to the ‘Advance Manifest System’ conduct.

               3.

               The General Court errs in law in concluding that the Commission did not breach Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the duty to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) when it decided not to hold The Brink’s Company jointly and severally liable with Schenker China Ltd. (as a successor of BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd.) for the ‘Chinese Currency Adjustment Factor’ conduct.

               4.

               The General Court errs in law by distorting the content of the Decision, exceeding the powers given to it under Article 264 TFEU and failing to carry out a balancing exercise in applying the principle of proportionality when concluding that the Commission did not breach Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) and the principles of proportionality and that the punishment must fit the offence when calculating the fines.

               5.

               The General Court errs in law by upholding the Commission’s reduction rates under the 2006 Leniency Notice (3). The General Court distorts the content of the Decision and breaches the Appellants’ rights to a fair hearing.

      (1)  EEC: Regulation No 141 of the Council exempting transport from the application of Council Regulation No 17

      OJ 124, p. 2751

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

      OJ L 1, p. 1

      (3)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases

      OJ C 298, p. 17


title: Case T-643/16: Action brought on 11 September 2016 — Gamaa Islamya Egypte v Council

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/50

         Action brought on 11 September 2016 — Gamaa Islamya Egypte v Council
   (Case T-643/16)
   (2016/C 419/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gamaa Islamya Egypte (Egypt) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1136 of 12 July 2016 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/2430 (OJ L 188, 13.7.2016, p. 21), in so far as it concerns Gamaa Islamya Egypte;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 of 12 July 2016 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 (OJ L 188, 13.7.2016, p. 1) in so far as it concerns Gamaa Islamya Egypte;

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four plea(s) in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(5) of Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (2001/931/CFSP; OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93; ‘Common Position 2001/931’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed errors as to the accuracy of the allegations made against the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council committed an error of assessment as to whether the applicant is a ‘terrorist group’.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging a failure to authenticate the statement of reasons.


title: Case T-482/10: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Genetically modified food and feed — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/12

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-482/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/432/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 202, p. 11).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-475/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Definitive designation of system operators — Decision exempting major new gas infrastructures from the application of certain provisions of Directive 2003/55/EC — Publication, consultation and notification obligations)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-475/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Definitive designation of system operators - Decision exempting major new gas infrastructures from the application of certain provisions of Directive 2003/55/EC - Publication, consultation and notification obligations)
   2010/C 24/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent, J. Scalais and O. Vanhulst, avocats)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 7, 11 and 18, in conjunction with Article 25(2), and Article 22(3)(d) and (e) and (4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) — Failure to designate systems operators for the transmission and storage of liquefied natural gas — No requirement to publish the decision exempting new large natural gas facilities from the application of the directive — No requirement to consult the other Member States or regulatory authorities concerned by the interconnection of those facilities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to designate transmission, storage and liquefied natural gas system operators on a definitive basis as required under Article 7 of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, and by failing to transpose Article 22(3)(d) and (e) and (4) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Removal from the register of Cases C-427/99 P and C-371/00 P

text:
C 274/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9.11.2002
      AB Svenska Spel contends that the company had no                           Removal from the register of Case C-413/00 ( 1)
      knowledge of the databases and obtained the data for the
      pools coupons from other sources and that what                                              (2002/C 274/42)
      appeared on the pools coupons was not the whole or a
      substantial part of the fixture lists. Fixtures Marketing
      Limited, for its part, argues that it was irrelevant to the        By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
      assessment whether the data were obtained from sources             the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
      other than the fixture lists since the data originally came        removal from the register of Case C-413/00: Commission of
      from them.                                                         the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
5.    How should the terms ‘normal exploitation’ and
      ‘unreasonably prejudice’ in Article 7(5) be interpreted?           (1 ) OJ C 28, 27.1.2001.
      Fixtures Marketing Limited argues that AB Svenska Spel
      has repeatedly and systematically extracted and re-utilised
      the contents of the database for commercial purposes, in
      a manner which conflicts with a normal exploitation of
      that database and thereby unreasonably prejudiced the                      Removal from the register of Case C-303/01 ( 1)
      football leagues. AB Svenska Spel, for its part, contended
      that it is wrong to look at several pools coupons together                                  (2002/C 274/43)
      in making an assessment and disputes that their use is in
      breach of Article 7(5) of the directive.
                                                                         By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
( 1) OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-303/01: Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others v
                                                                         Elliniko Dimosio (the Greek State) and Others.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 56, 31.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Cases C-427/99 P ( 1) and
                           C-371/00 P (2)
                         (2002/C 274/41)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-44/02 (1)
By order of 1st August 2002 the President of the Court of                                         (2002/C 274/44)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Cases C-427/99 P and C-371/00 P: RJB
Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities.                     By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-44/02: Commission of the European Com-
( 1) OJ C 20, 22.1.2000.                                                 munities v Portuguese Republic.
( 2) OJ C 355, 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002.


title: Case F-89/12: Action brought on 21 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/33

      Action brought on 21 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-89/12)
      (2012/C 331/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and A. Tymen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to regrade the applicant.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision adopted on 10 May 2012 by the Director of Directorate D of DG Human Resources and Security and sent to the applicant by note of 11 May 2012 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 25 January 2012;

                  —

                  In so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 November 2011 rejecting the applicant’s request of 29 June 2011;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to take the corrective measures necessary to re-establish compliance with the principle of career equivalence as regards the applicant;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Skatterättsnämnden by order of that body of 20 February 1997 in the case of Victoria Film A/S v. Riksskatteverket (Case C-134/97)

text:
No C 166/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        31 . 5 . 97
Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sanità, 3 . Minstero dell'Uni                   upon as against a national authority by the person
versità e della Ricerca Scientifica , 4 . Ministero del Tesoro,               dealing in such rights as a ground justifying treatment
on the following questions:                                                   of those transactions as taxable transactions ?
                                                                              If, again, that question is answered in the negative, an
'Must the provision of Directive 82/76/EEC (') providing                      answer to the following question is sought:
that the training of trainee medical specialists is to be
" subject to appropriate remuneration " be interpreted, in
so far as no specific provisions have been adopted by the               3 . Can the person dealing in those rights still claim a
Italian Republic in the prescribed terms, as having direct                    right to deduct on the basis of Article 17 ( 2 ) or
effect in favour of trainee medical specialists as against the                another provision of the Directive, that is to say, does
administrative authorities of the Italian Republic, and does                  the provision have direct effect even though the
it confer on trainee medical specialists the right to                         transaction does not give rise to any output tax ?
appropriate payment linked with all the training
undertaken in the departments entrusted with training by                (') ' 11 . The following types of transaction shall be exempt from
the State , with a corresponding obligation on those                               tax: ( l)The grant or assignment of rights covered by
administrative authorities, including the University of                            Article 1 , 4 or 5 of Law 1960 : 729 on Copyright in
Bologna , to pay such remuneration ?'                                              Literary and Artistic Works, but not ...'.
(') OJ No L 43 , 15 . 2 . 1982 , p . 21
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                                                                        24 March 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin
Skatterattsnamnden by order of that body of 20 February                               Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH
  1997 in the case of Victoria Film A/S v. Riksskatteverket                                       ( Case C-135/97)
                          ( Case C-134/97                                                           ( 97/C 166/19 )
                            ( 97/C 166/ 18 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities by an order of the Oberlandes
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  gericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna ) of 24 March
European Communities by an order of the                                 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 April
Skatterattsnamnden ( Revenue Board ) of 20 February                     1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Verein zur
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 April               Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v.
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Victoria Film             MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH on
A/S v. Riksskatteverket on the following questions:                     the following question :
                                                                        'Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
1 . Does Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth VAT Directive in           precluding application of legislation of Member State A
     conjunction with point 2 of Annex F to the Directive,              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
     and having regard to the terms of Annex XV, IX                     from selling in Member State A a periodically published
     Taxation, point 2 aa, of the Treaty of Accession                   magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
     between the Member States of the European Union                    puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
     and Sweden concerning Sweden's accession to the                    Member State B ?'
     European Union, mean that Sweden may have
     provisions in its national legislation having the tenor
     of Article 11 ( 1 ) of Title 3 of the Value Added Tax
     Law as worded until 31 December 1996 (')?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
     If the answer to that question is in the negative, an
                                                                        Tribunal, Manchester, by direction of that court of 2 April
     answer to the following question is sought.
                                                                        1997, in the case of Norbury Developments Ltd against
                                                                                the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
2 . Does the fact that Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) does not allow                                      ( Case C-136/97 )
     national legislation to provide for an exemption from                                          ( 97/C 166/20 )
     tax liability for the transactions referred to in
     Question 1 mean that this provision, Article 6 ( 1 ) or
     any other provision of the Sixth Directive has so-called           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     direct effect in this regard and can therefore be relied           European Communities by direction of the VAT and


title: Case C-119/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA, acting through Sucursala Sibiu, OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA, acting through Sucursala Sibiu, OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA
   (Case C-119/17)
   (2017/C 178/08)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean

      Defendants: OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA, acting through Sucursala Sibiu, OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/[1]3/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, together with the principle in dubio pro consumer reflected in the second sentence of Article 5(1) of the directive, and the case-law of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a bank loan agreement:

                           —

                           which grants the borrower a sum of money expressed in a certain curruncy (foreign currency) and requires the borrower to repay the loan in the same currency (foreign currency) but it is apparent from the circumstances attending the conclusion and execution of the agreement that the funds were in fact provided to the borrower in an entirely different currency and that the accounting currency is used only virtually and for the purposes of calculation;

                           —

                           under which the entire risk of appreciation of the external and/or internal value of the accounting currency used virtually (the foreign currency) is borne by the borrower (consumer), even though the consumer drew down a different payment currency, being the currency actually used;

                           —

                           which does not explain clearly how the exchange mechanism for the accounting currency used virtually actually works, that is, in such a way that the consumer is able to assess, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the financial consequences of signing the agreement;

                           —

                           which imposes a pecuniary obligation on the consumer to pay, in respect of loan instalments, sums arising from the difference between the instalments calculated in the accounting currency made available virtually to the borrower and the instalments calculated in the payment currency actually used:

                     may be unfair?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, what are the criteria which the national court must apply for the purpose of assessing whether such terms may be unfair, with reference to the factual situation described in the first question?

               3.

               May the terms described in the first question be regarded as being unrelated to the main subject matter of the loan agreement?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 1993, p. 29).


title: Case F-72/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 March 2007 — Fardoom and Ashbrook v Commission (Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Mission expenses — Refusal to sign the travel orders requested in the context of union activities — Interest in bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 March 2007 — Fardoom and Ashbrook v Commission
   (Case F-72/05) (1)

   (Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Mission expenses - Refusal to sign the travel orders requested in the context of union activities - Interest in bringing an action - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 82/114)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Mohammad Reza Fardoom (Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg) and Michael Ashbrook (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, then F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision not to sign the travel orders requested by the applicants in the context of their union activities
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229 of 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-291/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-315/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter Wilfer against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘CLIMATIC’ —                 The applicant runs a medium-sized publishing company and
sought:                       Application No 1705557                     publishes the Leipzig magazine ‘Kreuzer’. The magazine is
                                                                         financed inter alia by tobacco advertising.
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 11,
                              12 and 37 (inter alia, apparatus
                              for heating, steam generating,             The applicant seeks a declaration that Article 3(1) of Directive
                              refrigerating, drying and venti-           2003/33/EC is void. It argues that the directive breaches
                              lating; repair)                            Community law from several points of view. The directive
                                                                         infringes Article 251 EC as the published version of the
Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register        directive differs from that adopted by the Council and the
before the Board of           the mark in respect of goods and           Parliament. Further, the directive breaches Article 95 EC, as, in
Appeal:                       services in Classes 11 and 37              the case of a local or regional magazine such as that produced
                                                                         by the applicant, there are no internal market implications and
                                                                         the Community legislature thus has no role to play.
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                         The applicant submits further that the directive is vague and
Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement of Article 74(1)        thus breaches the constitutional requirement of certainty. It
                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/94          also infringes the requirement under Article 253 EC that
                                                                         reasons should be stated, as no reasons are actually given
                              —     Legally incorrect application        regarding the existence of obstacles to trade which could be
                                    of Article 7(1)(b) of Regu-          removed by the directive.
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant submits that the directive infringes
                                                                         the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 11 of the
                                                                         Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and
                                                                         Article 10(1) of the ECHR. That includes the right to ‘commer-
                                                                         cial speech’. The directive prejudices the placing of advertising
                                                                         and positive editorial reporting, without thereby in any way
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Kreuzer                           allowing the objective of the directive to be attained. Finally,
Medien GmbH against the European Parliament and the                      the directive infringes entrepreneurial freedom, the property
                                                                         rights of the applicant and the prohibition on going beyond
               Council of the European Union
                                                                         what is necessary laid down by the third paragraph of Article 5
                                                                         EC.
                         (Case T-310/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16.
                        (2003/C 289/57)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         Wilfer against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                                Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
of the European Communities on 11 September 2003 by
Kreuzer Medien GmbH, represented by Dr U. Kornmeier and
Dr D. Valbert.                                                                                (Case T-315/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/58)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     declare Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the
      European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003
      on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions of the Member States relating            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1)         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      void;                                                              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter Wilfer, represented by
—     order the defendant to bear the costs.                             A. Kockläuner, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/28              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the defendant’s Second Board of               —     annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      Appeal of 11 July 2003 in Case R 266/2002-1 in its                        26 June 2003 in Case R 337/2002-4 relating to Com-
      entirety;                                                                 munity trade mark application 1 708 973 ‘MunichFinan-
                                                                                cialServices’ (word mark);
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘Rockbass’ — Appli-
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
applied for:                  cation No 2401123
Goods or services:            Goods in Classes 9, 15 and 18               Community trade mark          Word mark ‘MunichFinancial-
                              (inter alia, technical sound equip-         sought:                       Services’     —        Application
                              ment, musical instruments and                                             No 1 708 973
                              containers)
Decision appealed to the      Examiner’s refusal to register              Goods or services:            Services in Classes 36 (financial
Board of Appeal:                                                                                services)
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                     Decision appealed to the      Examiner’s refusal to register
Appeal:                                                                   Board of Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 —     infringement                 of       Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
                                    Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                          Appeal:
                                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —     infringement of the principle         Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of
                                    of examination of the facts                                         Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                    by the Office of its own
                                    motion        pursuant       to
                                    Article 74(1)(1) of Regu-
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —     infringement of essential
                                    procedural requirements.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 September 2003 by E-Sim Limited
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Münchener                                                   (Case T-325/03)
Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft                 Aktiengesellschaft
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                   (2003/C 289/60)
                        (Case T-316/03)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                        (2003/C 289/59)                                                           submitted: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   23 September 2003 by E-Sim Limited, represented by Dr
on 12 September 2003 by Münchener Rückversicherungs-                      Andreas Ebert-Weidenfeller. Druckhaus Remstal-Bote GmbH,
Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft, represented by G. Würtenber-             Waiblingen (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
ger and R. Kunze, lawyers.                                                before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-534/12 P: Order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Action for review — Order of the General Court of the European Union declaring the action inadmissible — Assignment — Reassignment from the delegation in Luanda (Angola) to Brussels (Belgium) — Decision to pack and remove the applicant’s personal effects in his absence — Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/22

         Order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-534/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for review - Order of the General Court of the European Union declaring the action inadmissible - Assignment - Reassignment from the delegation in Luanda (Angola) to Brussels (Belgium) - Decision to pack and remove the applicant’s personal effects in his absence - Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court)
   2014/C 52/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission by which that court dismissed an application for review of the order of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in Case T-241/03 Marcuccio v Commission — Breach of the first subparagraph of Article 64(4) and Article 127(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Breach of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013


title: Case T-210/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/12

         Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission
   (Case T-210/12)
   2012/C 209/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV 2 Danmark A/S;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging essentially that the European Commission erred in law when it failed to include in its assessment aid granted to TV 2 Danmark A/S through 8 regional TV 2 broadcasting stations.
   In this regard, the applicant submits that the broadcasts provided free of charge by the regional broadcasting stations, which are financed by licence fees, to TV 2 Danmark A/S constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, it is recalled that according to the public service licence issued to TV 2 Danmark A/S by the Minster of Culture, TV 2 Danmark A/S retains the advertising revenue generated by the ‘advertisement slots’ in the regional broadcast.
   The applicant further alleges that by disregarding the State aid provided to TV 2 Danmark A/S through the regional broadcasting stations, the defendant has not considered the financial situation of TV 2 Danmark A/S in the light of the full spectrum of the revenues of such.
   Due to this failure, the applicant alleges that the entire assessment made by the defendant of the restructuring plan is based on erroneous assumptions concerning TV 2 Danmark A/S’s financial situation. Therefore, the applicant alleges that the defendant has not been in a position to confirm that the conditions laid down in its own Guidelines (1) are met.
   Consequently, the applicant alleges that the defendant has failed to comply with the criteria defined by the Commission itself in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and ultimately in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, when it assessed the rescue and restructuring aid to TV 2 Danmark A/S.

      (1)  Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2)


title: Case T-210/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid-rigging — Single and continuous infringement — Burden of proof)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission
   (Case T-210/08) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid-rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Burden of proof)
   2011/C 226/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Verhuizingen Coppens NV (Bierbeek, Belgium) (represented by: J. Stuyck and I. Buelens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and S. Noë, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(i) and Article 2(k) of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case T-114/11: Action brought on 25 February 2011 — Giordano v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/23

         Action brought on 25 February 2011 — Giordano v Commission
   (Case T-114/11)
   2011/C 139/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Giordano (Sète, France) (represented by: D.Rigeade and J. Jeanjean, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration that the enactment of Commission Regulation No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 caused damage to Mr Jean-François Giordano;

               —

               That the Commission pay Mr Giordano damages of EUR 542 594, plus interest at the statutory rate and on a compound basis;

               —

               The Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant makes five please:

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, (1) and a manifest error of assessment, in that only a serious threat to the conservation of marine resources would allow the Commission to adopt emergency measures. The applicant argues that the Commission has failed to demonstrate that, during the 2008 fishing season for bluefin tuna, there was fishing outside quotas.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of the right under Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to engage in work and pursue an occupation, in that Regulation No 530/2008 entailed a restriction on the applicant’s business

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in that Regulation No 530/2008 prohibited fishing for bluefin tuna as from 16 June 2008, whereas it was authorised until 30 June 2008 in France.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the applicant having had a legitimate expectation that he would be able to carry on his fishing business until 30 June 2008, since bluefin tuna fishing was initially authorised in France until 30 June 2008.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the right to property, in that Regulation No 530/2008 involved the compulsory cessation of the applicant’s business of fishing for bluefin tuna, whereas he had a fishing permit granted by the Minstry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the period from 1 April 2008 to 30 June 2008 — that authorisation constituting an indispensable part of the applicant’s economic interests. He argues:

                           —

                           that he has suffered a serious economic loss in connection with the carrying on of his business, bluefin tuna coming from fishing being ‘property’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and

                           —

                           that it constitutes a non-material debt in that the applicant had the legitimate expectation thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59


title: Case T-338/08: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Maximum residue levels for pesticides — Request for internal review — Refusal — Measure of individual scope — Validity — Aarhus Convention)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
   (Case T-338/08) (1)

   (Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Maximum residue levels for pesticides - Request for internal review - Refusal - Measure of individual scope - Validity - Aarhus Convention)
   2012/C 217/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht (Netherlands)), Pesticide Action Network Europe (London (United Kingdom)) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Burggraaf and S. Schønberg and subsequently by B. Burggraaf and P. Oliver, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by M. Dowgielewicz and subsequently by M. Szpunar, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and B. Driessen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 July 2008 rejecting as inadmissible the requests made by the applicants for review by the Commission of Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 1 July 2008 rejecting as inadmissible the requests made by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe for review by the Commission of Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe;

               3.

               Orders the Polish Republic and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2003 in Case T-372/02: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Development cooperation — European Community Humanitarian Office — Framework partnership agreement for the co-financing of operations carried out by NGOs — Rejection of an application — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
C 21/34                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.1.2004
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 15 October 2003
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
                                                                          in Case T-372/02: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Development cooperation — European Community
                                                                          Humanitarian Office — Framework partnership agreement
                                                                          for the co-financing of operations carried out by NGOs —
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Rejection of an application — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissible)
                     of 27 November 2003
                                                                                (2004/C 21/73)
in Case T-348/02: Quick restaurants SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                      Designs) (OHIM)1 (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Community trade mark — Trade mark consisting of the
word Quick — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive
character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                  Registration refused in part)
                                                                          In Case T-372/02, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in
                                                                          Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, v
                          (2004/C 21/72)                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Wil-
                                                                          derspin and S. Fries): Application for (i) annulment of the
                                                                          Commission’s decision of 22 October 2002 rejecting the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         application by the applicant to sign a framework partnership
                                                                          agreement with the European Community Humanitarian
                                                                          Office (ECHO), (ii) an order requiring the Commission either
                                                                          to reinstate the applicant in the position it had in 1996 when
                                                                          it applied to sign a framework partnership agreement or,
In Case T-348/02, Quick restaurants SA, established in Brussels           alternatively, to invite it to sign the framework partnership
(Belgium), represented by L. Van Bunnen, lawyer, with an                  agreement now in force and (iii) an order requiring the
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation             Commission to reimburse to the applicant the costs relating to
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                   its complaint to the European Ombudsman, the Court of First
(Agents: A. Rassat and S. Laitinen): Action for partial annul-            Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
ment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                 R. García-Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              has made an order on 15 October 2003, the operative part of
and Designs) of 17 September 2002 (Case R 1117/2000-2)                    which is as follows:
concerning registration of the word Quick as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on              1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible in its entirety.
27 November 2003, in which it:
                                                                          2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                     Commission.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.
(1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2000 in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de Barcelona): Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rocío Murciano Quintero (C240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane (C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98) (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Jurisdiction clause — Power of the national court to examine of its own motion whether that clause is unfair)

text:
C 302/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to assist EPAC —                 ation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on
Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA (OJ 1997                     unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) —
L 311, p. 25) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward,              L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-               J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragne-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                  malm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; A. Sag-
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                gio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which
given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:                             it held that:
1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Commission Decision         1.     The protection provided for consumers by Council Directive
      97/762/EC of 9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to                   93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer
      assist EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais,                    contracts entails the national court being able to determine of
      SA, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair
      under the Treaty;                                                           when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim
                                                                                should be allowed to proceed before the national courts.
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.     The national court is obliged, when it applies national law
                                                                                provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                          interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the
                                                                                wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an
                                                                                interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the
                                                                                national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that
                                                                                would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction
                                                                                conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 27 June 2000
in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
No 35 de Barcelona): Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rocı́o
Murciano Quintero (C240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José Luis
Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                                                           (First Chamber)
      (C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98) (1)
                                                                                of 29 June 2000
(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Jurisdiction clause — Power of the national court to
   examine of its own motion whether that clause is unfair)                in Case C-455/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus): Tullihallitus v Kaupo
                                                                                Salumets and Others (1)
                          (2000/C 302/07)
                                                                           (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
                                                                           — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Tax on importation — Scope — Contraband importation of
                                                                                ethyl alcohol)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2000/C 302/08)
In Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98: reference to the Court                                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No
35 de Barcelona, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
proceedings pending before that court between Océano Grupo
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Editorial SA v Rocı́o Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) and Salvat
Editores SA v José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José
Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                          In Case C-455/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98), on the interpret-          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen