title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 18 June 1996 in Case C-303/94: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Directive concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market - Prerogatives of the Parliament)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 269/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
                         of 18 June 1996                                                      of 25 June 1996
in Case C-303/94 : European Parliament v. Council of the             in Case C-101 /96: criminal proceedings against Italia
                      European Union ( 1 )                                                           Testa ()
(Directive concerning the placing of plant protection                (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free
products on the market — Prerogatives of the                         movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
                            Parliament)                               with regard to national legislation on the management of
                          ( 96/C 269/01 )                                  copyright by a company governed by public law)
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/02 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will he
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-303/94 : European Parliament ( Agent: Gregorio                      published in the European Court Reports)
 Garzón, assisted by Johann Schoo and Kieran Bradley )
 against Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon
                                                                      In Case C-101 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Torrent and Diego Canga Fano ) — application for the
 annulment of Council Directive 94/43/EC of 27 July 1994              of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma ,
 establishing Annex VI to Directive 91 /414/EEC concerning            Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli , for a preliminary ruling in the
 the placing of plant protection products on the market ( OJ          criminal proceedings before that court against Italia Testa
 No L 227 1994, p. 31 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.                on the compatibility of national legislation relating to the
 Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.              management of copyright with Article 30 of the EC Treaty ,
 Edward and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) ( Presidents of          the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn , C. Gulmann ,          C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G.
 J. L. Murray, P. Jann , L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges ;           Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C.
 Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                 Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C.
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment          Gulmann , J. L. Murray , P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L.
 on 18 June 1996 , in which it :                                      Sevón , Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ; R. Grass ,
                                                                      Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1996 , the operative
                                                                      part of which is as follows :
  1 . annuls Council Directive 94/43/EC of 27 July 1994
      establishing Annex VI to Directive 91 /414/EEC
      concerning the placing of plant protection products on          The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
      the market;                                                     Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di
                                                                      Tivoli, by order of 21 February 1996 is inadmissible.
 2 . orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M O J No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
  (') OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Chamber of the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal), Douai, by judgment of that court of 27 June 1997 in the case of Karl Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille (Case C-261/97)

text:
C 271 / 10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 9 . 97
       application of review procedures to the award of                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Chamber
       public supply and public works contracts, from which                 of the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal ), Douai, by
       there derives an individual right to have review                     judgment of that court of 27 June 1997 in the case of Karl
        proceedings conducted before authorities or courts                                  Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille
        which comply with the provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of                                        ( Case C-261 /97 )
        Directive 89/665/EEC, to be interpreted as being
        sufficiently precise and specific that, in the event of                                         ( 97/C 271/15 )
        non-transposition of the directive in question by the
        Member State, an individual may successfully assert                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        that legal right against the Member State in legal                  European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
        proceedings ?                                                       ( Social Chamber), Douai, of 27 June 1997, received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Karl Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille on the
3 . Are the provisions of Article 41 of Directive 92/50/
        EEC (2 ), in conjunction with Directive 89/665/EEC,                 following question:
        which are the basis of an individual 's right to have
        review proceedings conducted, to be interpreted as                  Is Article 14a (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
        meaning that a national court with the characteristics              14 June 1971 ( J ) to be interpreted as meaning that, in
        of the Unabhangiger Verwaltungssenat fur Karnten                    order to be exempt from paying contributions in France,
        may, when conducting review proceedings on the basis                an independent worker employed in two Member States
        of national provisions such as Paragraph 59 et seq. of              and living in another Member State must be registered
        the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz and the                        with a compulsory scheme for self-employed workers in
        regulations relating thereto, disregard those provisions            that other Member State ?
        if they prevent the carrying out of review proceedings
        under the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz for the                  (') On the application of social security schemes to employed
        award of service contracts, and therefore nevertheless                   persons and their families moving within the Community ( OJ,
        conduct review proceedings in accordance with                            English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ).
        Section 8 of the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz ?
4 . Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case ( 3 ),
        with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/EEC, to
        be classified as services coming under Annex IA,
        Category No 12, of Directive 92/50/EEC ( architectural              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
        services; engineering services and integrated                       Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
        engineering services; urban planning and landscape                  of 15—17 April 1997 in the case of Societa Appia Sri v.
        architectural services; related scientific and technical            ( 1 ) Comune di Cagliari and ( 2 ) Società Cagliari Calcio
       consulting services; technical testing and analysis                                                    SpA
        services )?                                                                                ( Case C-264/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 / 16 )
5 . Are the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC to be
       interpreted as satisfying the conditions laid down in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       the judgment in Case 41 /74 Van Duyn ( paragraph 12 )                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
       for the direct applicability of a Community directive,               Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
       with the result that services coming under Annex IA of               Sardinia ) of 15—17 April 1997, received at the Court
       the directive are to be awarded under the procedure                  Registry on 21 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       therein mentioned, or are the relevant provisions of                 case of Societa Appia Sri v. ( 1 ) Comune di Cagliari
       the directive in connection with the services mentioned
                                                                            (Municipality of Cagliari ) and (2 ) Societa Cagliari Calcio
       in Annex IA capable of fulfilling the conditions laid                SpA on the following questions :
       down in the said case ?
                                                                            whether Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50 (*) and the
(') OJ L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 33 .                                     provisions therein referred to require a public
( 2 ) OJ L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p. 1 .                                      administration ( in this case a Municipality ), which intends
(3 ) Consulting engineers' services for technical advice and
      planning and the planning and processing works for the                granting a concession in respect of facilities ( in this case a
      construction of a children's hospital ( parent and child centre )     municipal stadium ) to third parties that are considered to
      at the Landeskrankenhaus Klagenfurt with the corresponding            be particularly well qualified, with a view to bringing
      out-patient facilities, operating theatre, x-ray laboratory and       them under single management, to entrust the services
      five children 's wards and a children's surgical ward with a          covered by that directive ( in this case advertising services )
      total of 132 beds and a usable area of c . 8 100 m2; planning         to be carried out within the facilities to which the
      services for the sanitary, heating and air installations with air     concession relates by means of the procedures laid down
      conditioning and the electrical and high and low-voltage              by the abovementioned Article 8 , without giving
      current installations, structural and constructional engineering
      servicds, and planning services for the medical installations.
                                                                            preference to the concessionaire; if the Court should
                                                                            consider that in such circumstances the Administration is
                                                                            required to comply with Article 8 of Directive 92/50, it is
                                                                            necessary to ascertain whether compliance with that


title: Case C-112/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV (Transport — Air transport — Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Obligation on the person selling air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis — Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ — Price of flight cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company and forming part of the overall price)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV
   (Case C-112/11) (1)

   (Transport - Air transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Obligation on the person selling air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis - Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ - Price of flight cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company and forming part of the overall price)
   2012/C 295/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3) — Obligation on the seller of the air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of the optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis — Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ — Price of cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company, forming part of the overall price and charged to the passenger at the same time as the price of the flight

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘optional price supplements’, referred to in the last sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers costs, connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as the flight cancellation insurance at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the person selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case C-173/95 P: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

text:
2 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 64/7
      matches in competitions which they organize, football                          OPINION 3/94 OF THE COURT
      clubs may field only a limited number of professional                               of 13 December 1995 f 1 )
      players who are nationals of other Member States;
                                                                        (GATT — WTO — Framework Agreement on Bananas)
3 . the direct effect ofArticle 48 of the EC Treaty cannot be                                      ( 96/C 64/14 )
      relied upon in support of claims relating to a fee in
      respect of transfer, training or development which has           Request made to the Court on 25 July 1994 under
      already been paid on, or is still payable under an               Article 228 ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty by the Federal Republic of
      obligation which arose before, the date ofthis judgment,         Germany for an opinion on the compatibility with the
      except by those who have brought court proceedings or            Treaty of the Framework Agreement on Bananas between
      raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national         the European Community and Colombia, Costa Rica,
      law before that date.                                            Nicaragua and Venezuela and asking:
(>) OJ No C 312, 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                      ( a ) was the Framework Agreement on Bananas which was
                                                                             signed by the Commission on 28 and 29 March 1994
                                                                             duly negotiated from the point of view of procedural
                                                                             law, that is to say,
                                                                             — on the basis of a sufficient negotiating mandate
                                                                                from the Council, and
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             — in compliance with the relevant negotiating
                        (First Chamber )
                                                                                directives laid down by the Council ?
                     of 14 December 1995
in Case C-173/95 P: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the              ( b ) is the Framework Agreement on Bananas compatible
                   European Communities ( 1 )                                with the Treaty from the point of view of the
                                                                             substantive law ?
     (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)
                            ( 96/C 64/ 13 )
                                                                       The Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                       President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A, Schockweiler
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                       C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann. H. Ragnemalm and L.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Sevón, Judges, after hearing G. Tesauro , First
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Advocate-General , C. O. Lenz, F. G. Jacobs , A. M. La
                                                                       Pergola , G. Cosmas, P. Leger, M. B. Elmer, N. Fennelly and
In Case C-173/95 P , Anne Hogan, an official of the                    D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocates-General, finds :
European Parliament, resident in Luxembourg, represented
by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar, with                  there is no need to respond to the request for an
address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux,                  opinion.
appellant, appeals against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
of 29 March 1995 in Case T-497/93 Hogan v. Court of
Justice [ 19951 ECR-SC 11-251 , seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Court of Justice of the European Communities ( Agents :
Luigia Maggioni and Niels Lierow ). The Court ( First
 Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the
 Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate-General : A. La Pergola , Registrar: R. Grass, has             Action brought on 18 December 1995 by the Federal
given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:                     Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                Case C-396/95 )
 1 . dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/ 15 )
 2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                      European Communities on 18 December 1995 by the
                                                                        Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Rder,
                                                                        Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economics,
                                                                        D-53107 Bonn .


title: Case F-9/12 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 21 July 2016 — CC v Parliament (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Errors in the management of the list of suitable candidates — Open competition — Competition notice EUR/A/151/98 — Equal treatment — Measures for compliance with the judgment [confidential]Confidential data removed. — European Ombudsman’s investigation)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/29

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 21 July 2016 — CC v Parliament
      (Case F-9/12 RENV)
      ((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Errors in the management of the list of suitable candidates - Open competition - Competition notice EUR/A/151/98 - Equal treatment - Measures for compliance with the judgment [confidential] (1) - European Ombudsman’s investigation))
      (2016/C 364/32)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for an order that the European Parliament pay compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant as a result of errors committed in the management of the relevant reserve list.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Orders the European Parliament to pay CC the sum of EUR 12 000.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by CC in Cases F-9/12, T-457/13 P and F-9/12 RENV.

         (1)  Confidential data removed.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-30/96: José Gomes de Sá Pereira v. Council of the European Union (Council decisions appointing the chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Inadmissible)

text:
No C 247/ 16          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              European Communities in Luxembourg be maintained for
                        of 11 July 1996                               the time being — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                      made an order on 5 July 1 996 , the operative part of which is
in Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira v. Council of the          as follows :
                      European Union (')
(Council decisions appointing the chairmen and members of             1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
the Boards ofAppeal ofthe Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) — Action for                2.  the costs are reserved.
    annulment — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                          ( 96/C 247/34 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
In Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira , residing at Sao                   OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Joao de Ver, Santa Maria da Feira ( Portugal ), represented by                               of 12 July 1996
Augusto Cardoso, of the Oporto Bar, 1 6 Rua Jornal Correio
da Feira , 1° Dt°, Santa Maria da Feira , v. Council of the           in Case T-93/96 R: Catherine Presle v. European Centre for
European Union ( Agents : Therese Blanchet and Isabel                            the Development of Vocational Training
Lopes Cardoso ) — application , first, for annulment of the                                    ( 96/C 247/36 )
decisions of the Council of 23 October 1 995 appointing the
chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office                           (Language of the case: German)
for Harmonization in the Internal Market ( trade marks and
designs ) ( OJ No C 314 , pp . 3 , 4 and 5 ) and, second, for an      In Case T-93/96 R : Catherine Presle , an official of the
order requiring the Council to pay compensation for the               European Centre for the Development of Vocational
damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of             Training, residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Third                  Rechtsanwalt,     1 3 Place des Barricades, Brussels, v.
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, President, and B.                 European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made         Training,      represented     by Bertrand Wagenbaur,
an order on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application , first, for
follows :
                                                                      suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating
                                                                      to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,
1 . the application for free legal assistance is dismissed;           for an order that her posting in the Berlin branch of the
                                                                      European Parliament's Information Office for Germany be
2 . the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;               maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
                                                                      of First Instance made an order on 12 July 19 96 , the
3 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                  operative part of which is as follows:
(•) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.  the costs are reserved.
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 5 July 1996                                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-85 /96 R: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
                                                                                of 25 July 1996
        for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                      in Case T-98/96 R: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                          ( 96/ C 247/35 )
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                       (Officials — Decision providing for reassignment to a post
                (Language of the case: German)                                         — Suspension of operation)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/37 )
In Case T-85/96 R : Francis Alan Clarke , an official of the
European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Training, residing at Eischen ( Luxembourg ), represented by                          (Language of the case: French)
Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, 13 Place des Barricades,
Brussels, v. European Centre for the Development of                   In Case T-98/96 R : Mario Costacurta , an official of the
Vocational Training, represented by Bertrand Wagenbaur,               Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application, first, for                       Kinshasa , represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,       Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers , v. Commission of the
for an order that his posting in the Statistical Office of the        European Communities ( Agents: G. Valsesia and A. M.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 January 1995 in the case of Siemens AG v. Henry Nold (Case C-42/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95          lEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
by judgment of that court of 10 February 1995 in the case of             order of that court of 9 February 1995 , in the case of Regina
          Belgian State against Ghent Coal Terminal                      against Secretary of State for the Environment, ex-parte:
                           ( Case C-37/95 )                                          Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
                             ( 95/C 101 /05 )                                                       ( Case C-44/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/07)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hof van                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 10 February                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       of 9 February 1995 , which was received at the Court
16 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Registry on 24 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
Belgian State against Ghent Coal Terminal on the following               the case of Regina against Secretary of State for the
question:
                                                                         Environment, ex-parte : Royal Society for the Protection of
                                                                         Birds, on the following questions :
Does Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May                 1,    is a Member State entitled to take account of the
1 977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                    considerations mentioned in Article 2 of Council
relating to turnover taxes ( a ) mean that the right to deduct                 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
remains in existence for value added tax on investments                        conservation of wild birds ( a ) in classification of an area
which were originally intended for use in the undertaking                      as a Special Protection Area and/or in defining the
but were never in fact put into use by the undertaking ?                       boundaries of such an area pursuant to Article 4 ( 1 )
                                                                               and/or 4 ( 2 ) of that Directive ?
f 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                         2 . If the answer to question 1 is 'no', may a Member State
                                                                               nevertheless take account of Article 2 considerations in
                                                                               the classification process in so far as:
                                                                               (a ) they amount to a general interest which is superior
                                                                                to the general interest which is repersented by the
                                                                                ecological objective of the Directive ( i.e. the test
                                                                                which the European Court has laid down in e.g.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                          Commission v. Germany ('Leybucht Dykes') Case
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 January                               57/89 for derogation from the requirements of
        1995 in the case of Siemens AG v. Henry Nold                                 Article 4 (4 )); or
                           ( Case C-42/95 )
                             ( 95/C 101/06 )                                   ( b ) they amount to imperative reasons of overriding
                                                                                public interest such as might be taken into account
                                                                                under Article 6 (4 ) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
                                                                                of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( 2 ).
European Communities by an order of the Second Civil
Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court ofJustice ) of
30 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry               t 1 ) OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979 , p . 1 .
on 23 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of            ( 2 ) OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 7.
Siemens AG v. Henry Nold, on the following question:
Is it compatible with the Second Council Directive of
13 December 1976 i 1 ), in particular Article 29 ( 1 ) and (4 )
thereof, for the legality of a resolution of a general meeting
of shareholders relating to an increase in capital in return for         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
contributions in kind while at the same withdrawing the                  Travail de Tournai (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of that
shareholders ' right of pre-emption to be determined on the              court of 14 February 1995 in the case of Institut National
basis of a substantive review in accordance with the                     d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
principles laid down in the Bundesgerichtshof's judgments                                      against Hans Kemmler
BGHZ 71 , 40 and BGHZ 83 , 319 ?
                                                                                Case C-53/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/08 )
(!) OJ No L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                         Travail de Tournai ( Labour Court, Tournai, Belgium)


10.5.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-26/02 (1)
—     Irregularity of the proceedings                                                           (2003/C 112/40)
      The Court of First Instances misinterpreted the case as
      presented by the applicant, making no mention in its             By order of 26 February 2003 the President of the Court of
      judgment of the evidence led by it and reflected in the          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Report for the Hearing. Furthermore, the judgment is also        from the register of Case C-26/02: Kingdom of Spain v Council
      misleading as to the course of the hearing before the            of the European Communities.
      Court of First Instance.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
—     Breach of Community law
      The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that
      Article 125 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June
      1986 on the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-254/02 ( 1)
      territories with the European Economic Community does
      not include agricultural projects among those capable of
                                                                                (2003/C 112/41)
      being financed by Community funding. The Court of First
      Instance ignored the evidence put forward in that respect
      by the applicant.
                                                                       By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Court of
      Moreover, the Court of First Instance infringed the              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rights of the              from the register of Case C-254/02 (Reference for a preliminary
      defence by misinterpreting the complaints put forward            ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal
      by the applicant.                                                Centre): Fast Forward Resources plc v Commissioners of
                                                                       Customs and Excise.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-504/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop), J. Espírito Santo & Irmãos Lda, Sequeira, Lucas, Venturas & Ca Lda, Barraqueiro Transportes SA, Rodoviária de Lisboa v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris), Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP) (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Public service obligations — Grant of compensation — Urban passenger transport sector)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop), J. Espírito Santo & Irmãos Lda, Sequeira, Lucas, Venturas & Ca Lda, Barraqueiro Transportes SA, Rodoviária de Lisboa v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris), Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP)
   (Case C-504/07) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Public service obligations - Grant of compensation - Urban passenger transport sector)
   2009/C 153/14
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop), J. Espírito Santo & Irmãos Lda, Sequeira, Lucas, Venturas & Ca Lda, Barraqueiro Transportes SA, Rodoviária de Lisboa

      Defendants: Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris), Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Articles 73 EC, 76 EC, 87 EC, and 88 EC and of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the conditions inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1) — Municipal public passenger transport service — Existence or not of duty of compensation — Aid intended to compensate for operating deficits of undertakings

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it authorises the Member States to impose public service obligations on a public undertaking entrusted with the provision of public passenger transport in a municipality and that it provides for compensation to be granted in respect of the financial burdens resulting therefrom; the amount of such compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of that regulation.

               2.

               Regulation No 1191/69, as amended by Regulation No 1893/91, precludes the grant of compensation payments, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where it is not possible to determine the amount of the costs imputable to the activity of the undertakings concerned carried out in the performance of their public service obligations.

               3.

               Where a national court finds certain aid measures to be incompatible with Regulation No 1191/69, as amended by Regulation No 1893/91, it is a matter for that court to establish all the consequences, under national law, as regards the validity of the acts giving effect to those measures.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case F-122/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 10 September 2014  — Carneiro v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/66

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — Carneiro v Europol
   (Case F-122/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis))
   2014/C 409/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria José Carneiro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Kempeners and M. Itani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and J. Arnould, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Europol’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract for an indefinite duration and an application for an order that Europol pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive from Europol and any other allowance which she actually received.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis.

               2.

               Ms Carneiro is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 52 of 22/02/2014, p. 53.


title: Case T-183/02: Action brought on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
24.8.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/33
Grounds of claim:            —     Irregularity of the procedure        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                   in that the appeal was reas-
                                   signed to another Board of
                                   appeal and that the applicant
                                   was not informed of the              Applicant for the Com-        The applicant.
                                   change of name of the                munity trade mark:
                                   opponent.
                                                                        Community trade mark          Word mark MUNDICOR (appli-
                             —     Failure of the Board of              applied for:                  cation published in Community
                                   Appeal to provide reasons                                          Trade Mark Bulletin No 27/98,
                                   for its decision.                                                  p. 600, 14 April 1998) for goods
                                                                                in the 42 classes of the nomencla-
                             —     Breach of the concept of                                           ture.
                                   ‘likelihood of confusion’.
                             —     Misuse of rights by the              Owner of the mark or          González Cabello S.A.
                                   opponent in that it has not          sign relied on in the
                                   made any use of the mark             opposition proceedings:
                                   objected to.
                                                                        Mark or sign opposed:         Spanish mark MUNDICOLOR for
                                                                                goods in class 2 (colours, varnish-
                                                                                es, lacquers, preservatives against
                                                                                rust and against deterioration of
                                                                                wood; colorants; mordants; raw
                                                                                natural resins; metals in foil and
                                                                                powder form for painters, decor-
                                                                                ators, printers and artists).
                                                                        Decision of the oppo-         Application allowed.
                                                                        sition division:
Action brought on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés, S.A.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal brought
                            Market                                      Appeal:                       by El Corte Inglés S.A.
                                                                        Pleas in law relied on:       Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                       (Case T-183/02)                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                lihood of confusion).
                       (2002/C 202/54)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          Action brought on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés, S.A.
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés,                                            Market
S.A. of Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.
                                                                                (Case T-184/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 202/55)
—    annul the decision of 22.3.02 of OHIM’s First Board of
     Appeal and the decision of 17.9.99 of OHIM’s opposition                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
     division;
—    allow registration of Community Trade Mark No 557108
     ‘MUNDICOR’ to proceed for all goods claimed in Class 2;            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés,
—    order the opponent(s) to pay the costs.                            S.A. of Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.


title: Case T-537/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in China — Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council
   (Case T-537/08) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in China - Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2013/C 313/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi, China); Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd (Jiangyin, China); NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd (Jiangyin); Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd (Fuyang, China) (represented initially by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and G. Vallera, Barrister, and subsequently by J.-F. Bellis, A. Scalini and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. França and H. van Vliet, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008 maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 247, p. 1), as regards the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it has been brought by Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it has been brought by Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd and Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber, Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre, NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber, Xiake Color Spinning, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and severally, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-369/15: Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Hernández Zamora v OHIM — Rosen Tantau (Paloma)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/33

         Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Hernández Zamora v OHIM — Rosen Tantau (Paloma)
   (Case T-369/15)
   (2015/C 320/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hernández Zamora, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosen Tantau KG (Uetersen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Paloma’ — Application for registration No 11 638 971

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2015 in Case R 1697/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the party or parties opposing the application to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-235/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2008 — Austrian Relief Programm v Commission (Application for annulment — Community financing of a project for the improvement of living standards to promote the return of refugees and displaced persons — Arbitration clause — Debit note — Inadmissible)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2008 — Austrian Relief Programm v Commission
   (Case T-235/06) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Community financing of a project for the improvement of living standards to promote the return of refugees and displaced persons - Arbitration clause - Debit note - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 327/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Austrian Relief Program — Verein für Not- und Katastrophenhilfe (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: C. Leyroutz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimdová, agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the debit note of 4 May 2006 by which the Commission sought repayment from the applicant of sums paid in performance of the contract concerning Community financing of the project ‘Republika Srpska 1998: Improvement of living standards to promote the return of refugees and displaced persons’ (Contract RE/YOU/03/04/98), concluded within framework of the Obnova programme.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               Austrian Relief Program — Verein für Not- und Katastrophenhilfe is ordered t pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


C 156/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  29.6.2002
The applicant asks the Court to:                                               Removal from the register of Case T-163/97 (1)
—     annul the decision taken by the Selection Board of
      Competition COM/A/7/01 on 11 February 2002 not to                                          (2002/C 156/70)
      correct the written test of the applicant and not to admit
      him to the tests subsequent to the written test;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
—     annul all the subsequent steps and measures taken in the
      competition procedure in question;
—     in the alternative, order the Commission to pay to the            By order of 10 April 2002 the President of the Third Chamber
      applicant EUR 100 000 as compensation for material                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      and non-material damage;                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-163/97:
                                                                        Nederlands Antillen v Council of the European Union and
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 12.07.1997.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case, the applicant is challenging the refusal by
the Selection Board in Open Competition COM/A/7/01 to
correct his written test and admit him to the subsequent tests.
The ground for that refusal is that the applicant is said to
have insufficient experience in the area of human resource
management.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-218/99 (1)
It is pointed out that the applicant was included on the list                                    (2002/C 156/71)
of candidates who fulfilled the general conditions of the
competition, he took part in the pre-selection tests, and was
admitted to the written test.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
In support of his application, the applicant claims that:
—     there was a manifest error of assessment in this case;            By order of 28 January 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-218/99: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of the
—     the obligation to state reasons has been infringed;               European Communities.
—     the principle of sound administration and the duty to
      have regard to the welfare of applicants have not been
      complied with.                                                    (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 August 2003 in Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — Application to suspend application — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of interests)

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/11
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of the Hearing Officer's decision of 16 August 2001 refusing
                                                                         to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
                          of 9 July 2003                                 the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
                                                                         bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
in Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG v Commission of                         against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                the European Communities (1)                             Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
                                                                         P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
(Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-                  an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:
ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
                         (2003/C 251/21)
                                                                         1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs.
In Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzki and B. Maassen,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment               (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.
of the Hearing Officer's decision of 17 August 2001 refusing
to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                                 INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 August 2003
1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.                               in Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs,     (Interlocutory proceedings — Application to suspend applica-
     including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings in Case        tion — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of interests)
     T-219/01 R.
                                                                                (2003/C 251/23)
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.01.                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         In Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA, estab-
                                                                         lished in Barcelona (Spain), represented by C. Fernández
                                                                         Vicién, P. González-Espejo and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (FIFTH                              B. Doherty and S. Pardo Quintillán) — application to suspend
                           CHAMBER)                                      application of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                         2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to
                          of 9 July 2003                                 Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of author-
                                                                         isations granted to plant-protection products containing this
in Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG v Commission of                       active substance (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8), the President of the
                the European Communities (1)                             Court made an order on 5 August 2003, the operative part of
                                                                         which is as follows:
(Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-
ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
                         (2003/C 251/22)                                 1.   The interlocutory application is dismissed;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by W. Bosch and M. Hirsch,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment


title: Case C-48/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (intervener in support of the defendant: Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Industrie e.V.)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (intervener in support of the defendant: Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Industrie e.V.)
   (Case C-48/05)
   (2005/C 82/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (Germany) of 28 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 8 February 2005, in the proceedings between Adam Opel AG and Autec AG (intervener in support of the defendant: Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Industrie e.V.) for a preliminary ruling on the following questions of the interpretation of Article 5(l)(a) and Article 6(l)(b) of the First Directive of the Council No 89/104/EC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

               1.

               Does the use of a trade mark registered also for ‘toys’ constitute use as a trade mark for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive if the manufacturer of a toy model car copies a real car in a reduced scale, including the trade mark of the proprietor of the trade mark as applied to the real car, and markets it?

               2.

               If the answer to Question in 1 is in the affirmative: is the type of use of the trade mark described in Question 1 an indication of the kind or quality of the model car within the meaning of Article 6(1)(а) of the Trade Mark Directive?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
               In cases of this type what are the decisive criteria to be applied in assessing whether the trade mark corresponds to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters?

               4.

               Is this in particular the case if the manufacturer of the model car applies to the packaging, and to an accessory required in order to use the model, a mark recognisable to the trade as its own trade mark together with its company name and the address of its seat?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-29/11 and C-30/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania)) — Aurora Elena Sfichi v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (C-29/11), Adrian Ilaș v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (C-30/11) (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/9

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania)) — Aurora Elena Sfichi v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (C-29/11), Adrian Ilaș v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (C-30/11)
   (Joined Cases C-29/11 and C-30/11) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles)
   2011/C 211/16
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Aurora Elena Sfichi (C-29/11), Adrian Ilaș (C-30/11)

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (C-29/11), Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (C-30/11)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Suceava — Registration of second-hand motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States — National legislation making the first registration of such motor vehicles conditional upon payment of an environmental tax, whereas second-hand motor vehicles already present on the national market are exempt from payment of that tax on the occasion of re-registration — Whether the national legislation is compatible with the first and second paragraphs of Article 110 TFEU — Obstacle to the free movement of goods

      Operative part of the order

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA against the Council of the European Union (Case T-80/97)

text:
 12 . 7. 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/27
      rejecting the complaint of 6 April 1995 and, second,                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      of the opinion of the Invalidity Committee of                                           of 15 May 1997
      13 September 1994;
                                                                      in Case T-l 75/96: Georges Berthu v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( ] )
2 . dismisses the       remainder of the application as               (Economic and monetary policy — Commission proposal
      unfounded;                                                      — Action for annulment — Replacement of the term 'ecu '
                                                                      provided for in Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the term
                                                                                'euro ' — Manifest inadmissibility)
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/53
(M OJ No C 333, 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-175/96 : Georges Berthu,        a Member of the
                                                                      European Parliament, represented by       Alexandre Varault,
                                                                      of the Paris Bar, v. Commission            of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker )        — application for
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            annulment of the ' decision ' of the Commission contained
                                                                      in a proposal for a regulation submitted to the Council on
                         of 12 May 1997
                                                                      16 October 1996 'on some provisions relating to the
in Case T-561/93 ( 92 ): Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission             introduction of the euro' ( COM(96 ) 499 final ) — the
               of the European Communities ( 1 )                      Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy, President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and J.
                       (Taxation of costs)                            Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                           97/C 212/52                                15 May 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                      1 . The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case T-561/93 ( 92 ): Tiercé Ladbroke SA, established in
Brussels, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher              O OJ No C 9 , 11 . 1 . 1997.
Vajda, of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen
Kon, Solicitor, London, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60
Avenue Gaston Diderich, against Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents: Francisco Enrique
Gonzalez Diaz and Richard Lyal ), supported by Pari
Mutuel Unifié Beige, established in Brussels, and Societe             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA against
Cooperative Auxiliaire PMU Beige, established in Brussels,                        the Council of the European Union
together represented by Thomas Delahaye, Member of the                                         Case T-80/97 )
Bar of the Belgian Cour de Cassation, with an address for
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/54
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk,
13B Avenue Guillaume — application for taxation of the
costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the interveners                            (Language of the case: French)
following the order of the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition, of 6 October 1995 ,
removing Case T-561 /93 from the register — the Court of              An action against the Council of the European Union was
First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Azizi,                   Communities on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA, whose
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 May                   registered office is at Luynes ( France ), represented by
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                      Jean-François Bellis and Philippe de Baere, both of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe .
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
applicant to the interveners is fixed in the sum of Bfrs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
 170 000.
                                                                      — annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 71/97
(') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .                                          in so far as it applies to the applicant,
                                                                      — order the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant assembles bicycles in France under its own              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
brand name ' Starway' and under the brand names of its                in Case T-16/97 P ). '
customers for bicycles made to order.
                                                                       1 OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
This action is for the annulment of Article 2 of Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 of 10 January 1997 extending
the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
( EEC ) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from
the People's Republic of China, in so far as it applies to            Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman
imports by the applicant.                                                           against the European Commission
                                                                                ( Case T-l 16/97 )
The applicant considers that the Council has infringed
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/56 )
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 by extending the anti-dumping duty                                   (Language of the case: French)
applicable to imports of bicycles to imports of parts of
bicycles without the conditions in Article 13 (2 ) of that            An action against the European Commission was brought
regulation, and particularly Article 13 (2 ) ( b ) thereof,           before the Court of First Instance of the European
being fulfilled. The Council wrongly concluded that                   Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman,
bicycle parts originating in China imported by the                    residing in Riga ( Latvia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
applicant during the period of the investigation constituted          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
 assembled product.                                                    Rue de Cessange .
The applicant maintains, moreover, that, contrary to                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Article 190 of the Treaty, the contested regulation is not
 supported by an adequate statement of reasons, in that the           — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996
 grounds relied on to justify the extension of the anti                   rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
 dumping duty to the imports of bicycle parts by the                       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of
 applicant bear no logical relation to the conclusion they                 the Staff Regulations,
 are alleged to support.
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                           expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne                       proceedings.
                against the European Commission
                         ( Case T-l 15/97)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                           ( 97/C 212/55 )
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       in Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
                  (Language of the case: French)
  An action against the European Commission was brought                (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
  before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne,
  residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the
  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche against
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-128/97 )
  — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996                                                      97/C 212/57
       rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of                        (Language of the case: French)
       the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
  — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
       adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                    Communities on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche, residing
       expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
       proceedings .                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 February 1996 in Case T-15/95: Nuno do Paço Quesado v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Annulment of decision of the Commission fixing the applicant's grade - Reinstatement following secondment at the official's request)

text:
No C 133/20           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-324/95 H                 from the register of Case C-324/95 : Commission of the
                        ( 96/C 133/44 )                            European Communities v. Ireland.
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 February 1996                                                   of 6 March 1996
in Case T-15/95 : Nuno do Paço Quesado v. Commission of                 in Case T-141/95 : Kirsten Schelbeck v. European
               the European Communities { l )                                                 Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials  — Annulment of decision of the Commission              (Officials — Remuneration — National allowances —
fixing the applicant's grade — Reinstatement following             Discontinuance of application of the rule against
            secondment at the official's request)                    overlapping — Scope of entitlement to reimbursement)
                        ( 961C 133/45 )                                                      ( 96/C 133/46 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T- 1 4 1/95 , Kirsten Schelbeck, an official of the
                                                                   European Parliament, residing at Luxembourg, represented
                                                                   by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Véronique
In Case T-15/95 : Nuno do Paço Quesado, an official of the         Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ., 1 Rue
Trier ( Germany), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and               Glesener, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter
Véronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for       and Jannis Pantalis ) — application for the annulment of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson           decision of the European Parliament of 1 December 1994,
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                adopted pursuant to a decision discontinuing the
Communities (Agents : Joseph Griesmar and Julian Currall )         application of Article 67 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations of
— application for the annulment of the Commission's                officials of the European Communities to certain
decision of 1 March 1994 fixing the applicant's grade, at the      allowances provided for by Danish legislation, whereby the
time of his reinstatement in the Commission's Translation          applicant was refused reimbursement of the amounts
Service following secondment at his request, as LA 5 , step 1 ,    deducted from her remuneration pursuant to that provision
with seniority from 1 April 1994 — the Court of First              for the period from 1 November 1987 to 30 April 1993 —
Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of H. Kirschner,              the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos,                A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28             Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
February 1996 , in which it:                                       has given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                   1 , annuls the decision of the European Parliament of
1 , dismisses the application;                                         1 December 1 994 refusing to reimburse to the applicant
                                                                       the amounts deducted from her remuneration for the
                                                                       period from 1 November 1987 to 30 April 1993
                                                                       pursuant to Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations of
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        officials of the European Communities;
                                                                   2 , orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay
(M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                          the costs of the applicant.
                                                                   (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Case C-208/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/38

      Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission
      (Case C-208/16 P)
      (2016/C 211/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze und R. Kanitz)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  quash the General Court’s judgment of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as being unfounded;

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, K(2011)275 final, on State aid C 7/10 — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), according to Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellant raises one ground of appeal in support of its appeal.
      There is an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court disregarded that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (KStG), known as ‘the restructuring clause’, is not selective:

                  —

                  the ‘restructuring clause’ is not prima facie selective, as there is no exception to the relevant reference system and because it is a general measure, which may benefit all undertakings in the territory of the Member State;

                  —

                  the ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and the internal structure of the tax system. The ‘restructuring clause’ is justified by, first, the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, second, combatting abuse, namely the prevention of abusive arrangements, and, third, the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of shares and an acquisition of shares for the purposes of restructuring.


title: Case C-339/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-556/15 Portugal v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/13

         Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-556/15 Portugal v Commission
   (Case C-339/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/23)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;

               —

               Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

      A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

      First argument

   Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

      Second argument

   Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

      B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

      First argument

   The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

      Second argument

   The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

      C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings