title: Case C-321/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office (Ireland) made on 6 June 2016 — Maria Isabel Harmon v Owen Pardue

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office (Ireland) made on 6 June 2016 — Maria Isabel Harmon v Owen Pardue
   (Case C-321/16)
   (2016/C 279/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Isabel Harmon

      Defendant: Owen Pardue

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP breached the fundamental rights of Mr. Pardue and in particular those rights as provided for in Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 and supplemented for in the Preamble of CFR?

               2.

               Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP the right to refuse to comply with legitimate Court Orders and/or if she fails to comply and/or fails to give an explanation or reason for the non compliance, is this compatible with the CFR?

               3.

               Having regard to the foregoing and given that the DPP’s decisions are only reviewable by a court if demonstrated that the DPP reached a decision mala fides or influenced by an improper motive or improper policy, as the present state of Irish law permits, is this consistent and compatible with the CFR having regard to the facts of this case?


title: Case C-684/15: Order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-684/15) (1)

   (2016/C 279/37)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case C-170/99 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A., Lomagenais S.A., Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech against the order made on 9 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-205/98 between Clauni S.A. and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/14              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
of the Federal Chancellor’s Office, acting as Agent, assisted by         — (In the alternative) Infringements of the law and inadequate
Dr Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service                statement of reasons in the application of Article 92(3) of
in Luxembourg al the office of Dr Josef Magerl, Ambassador,                  the EC Treaty.
at the Austrian Embassy, 3 Rue des Bains.
                                                                         (1) Not published in the Official Journal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision K (1999) 325 endg. of
    3 February 1999 (1) on State aid granted by Austria in the
    form of an exemption from drinks tax on wine and other
    fermented drinks in the case of direct sale to the consumer
    at the place of production;                                          Appeal brought on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A., Lomagenais
                                                                         S.A., Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech against the
                                                                         order made on 9 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 in Case T-205/98 between Clauni S.A. and Others and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-170/99 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 226/23)
— Breach of essential procedural requirements: The Com-
    mission made incorrect findings of fact on a number of               An appeal against the order made on 9 March 1999 by the
    points of importance for the question of classifying the             Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
    rule as a general measure or as aid and in examining                 Communities in Case T-205/98 between Clauni S.A and
    whether there is significant distortion of competition and           Others and the Commission of the European Communities
    effect on trade.                                                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A. Lomagenais S.A.,
                                                                         Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech, represented by
— Infringement of the EC Treaty as a result of incorrect                 Daniel Veyssière, of the Agen Bar, with an address for service
    application of Article 92(1): The exemption from drinks              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloïse May 31 Grand-Rue.
    tax of on-the-spot sales of wine does not constitute an
    exception to the principle that sales of wine at the first           The appellants claim that the Court should:
    lever of trace are not subject to drinks tax. The tax
    exemption for on-the-spot sales is also justified from the           — set aside in its entirety the order declaring the action
    point of view of efficiency. If adverse effects on competition           inadmissible;
    occur as a result of general measures, the basis for
    eliminating those adverse effects is not the State aid
    procedure but, if necessary, a procedure for approximation           — allow the appellants’ claim for a rebate (1) or, more
    of laws.                                                                 precisely, their application for annulment of the implicit
                                                                             decision rejecting their claim for a rebate;
    It is not evident why an exemption from drinks tax which             — grant the application for annulment of the Commission’s
    directly benefits the final consumer should lead to at                   decision refusing to issue import certificates based on the
                                                                             quota for Poland, which is the corollary of that claim for a
    least indirect advantages for farmers. It depends on the
                                                                             rebate;
    individual case to what extent a wine-grower can obtain a
    higher remuneration because no drinks tax is charged. In
    any event, a higher remuneration is not attributable to the          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    State even indirectly.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— Inadequate statement of reasons, breach of Article 190 of
    the EC Treaty: The Commission failed to address the                  — Material error and contradiction in the grounds stated as
    arguments of the Republic of Austria adequately or in                    regards the chronology of the facts, giving rise to an
    some cases at all.                                                       erroneous computation of the procedural time-limits.
                                                                         — Distortion of the claim for a rebate and of the appellants’
    It erred in law by assuming that it did not have to apply                choice of procedure:
    the provisions or the common organisation of the market
    in wine; according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,              — the applicant, taking note of the implicit initial refusal
    however, the rules on State aid apply only secondarily                        of the Commission to allocate the goods in issue to the
    compared to the Provisions on the organisation of the                         Community quota, expressly requested the Com-
    market.                                                                       mission, in its rebate application of 20 December
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/15
        1995, to make a retroactive allocation to the quota; no         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
        reply was ever given to that request;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
    — It was only when recourse to the natural judicial forum,
        namely the Community judicature, was blocked by an              — Error of law as to the admissibility in the present proceed-
        insurmountable obstacle, in the form of the French                  ings of the reasons given in relation to the documentation
        national authorities, that direct proceedings were                  in the case and the procedural option of making a reference
        brought before the Community judicature, within the                 for a preliminary ruling: it is certainly true that such a
        national time-limit of three years.                                 reference would have been the most appropriate way of
                                                                            proceeding, but the rules governing the tariff classification
                                                                            of mushrooms according to the way in which they are
— Failure to have regard to the admissibility of a reference to             cooked evidently appeared, from the French standpoint, to
    special consultations on issues of fact and of law.                     be so clear that they did not warrant any such reference
                                                                            for a preliminary ruling. The appellants point out that the
— Infringement of the Community Customs Code and of the                     tariff classification of mushrooms has since formed the
    rules governing its application.                                        subject-matter of a number of regulations at Community
                                                                            level; in their view this reflects the erroneous approach
                                                                            adopted by the Community rules. They further recall that
                                                                            the Court of Justice, ruling on a question referred for a
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999, p. 30.                                            preliminary ruling by a national court of another Member
                                                                            State concerning a master arising in the same area during
                                                                            the same period, held its judgment of 4 July 1996 in
                                                                            Case C-296/94 (2) that Commission Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                            2163/92 on the levying of additional amounts in respect
                                                                            of deep-cooked mushrooms was invalid.
                                                                        — Erroneous legal assessment of the facts, in that the
                                                                            contested judgment found that the damage alleged had not
                                                                            been suffered.
                                                                        — Erroneous legal assessment of the facts, in that the
Appeal brought on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A., Lomagenais                     contested judgment found that the application did not
S.A., Jean-Marie Bissière and André Lompech against the                     identify any unlawful failure to act on the part of the
order made on 9 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of                         Commission.
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-206/98 between Clauni S.A. and Others and the                 — Failure to have regard to the respective spheres of com-
        Commission of the European Communities                              petence of the Commission and of the administrative
                                                                            authorities of the Member States in relation to customs
                                                                            rebates: in the case of inertia or reticence on the part of
                        (Case C-171/99 P)                                   national administrative authorities as regards the for-
                                                                            warding of a rebate application to the Commission,
                                                                            there is absolutely nothing that the Community citizen
                         (1999/C 226/24)                                    concerned can do in practice to remedy the situation. The
                                                                            right to have effective recourse to the courts and to receive
                                                                            a statement of the reasons underlying decisions of the
An appeal against the order made on 9 March 1999 by the                     national authorities which adversely affect a right conferred
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               by the Community rules constitutes a fundamental prin-
Communities in Case T-206/98 between Clauni S.A and                         ciple of Community law. By the same token, the principle
Others and the Commission of the European Communities                       of protection against arbitrary or disproportionate inter-
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     vention by the administrative authorities has been
Communities on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A. Lomagenais S.A.,                   expressly confirmed on numerous occasions. It is clear,
Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech, represented by                      therefore, that, in circumstances involving a new instance
Daniel Veyssière, of the Agen Bar, with an address for service              of general failure on the part of the Commission to ensure
in Luxembourg at the Chamber of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                   the implementation of the Treaty, an individual may rely
                                                                            on the developmental force of the Court’s case-law. Article
                                                                            906a of the regulation governing the implementation of
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 the Community Customs Code provides a comprehensive
                                                                            mechanism for a fair examination of rebate applications
— set aside in its entirety the order declaring the action                  and, following years of litigation, for a statement of reasons
                                                                            to be given at Community lever, together with the legal
    inadmissible;
                                                                            guarantees and remedies relating thereto.
— allow the appellants’ claim for a rebate (1) or, more
                                                                        (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999, p. 30.
    precisely, their application for annulment of the implicit          (2) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996, p. 7.
    decision rejecting their claim for a rebate, so as to enable
    them to demonstrate to the European Commission the
    validity of the tariff heading declared;


title: Case T-570/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — HF v Parliament (Civil Service — Member of the auxiliary contract staff — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Statutory reply period of four months — AECC decision to open an administrative inquiry — No position adopted by the AECC within the statutory reply period as to the reality of the alleged psychological harassment — Concept of decision impliedly rejecting the request for assistance — Non-existent act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — HF v Parliament
   (Case T-570/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Member of the auxiliary contract staff - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Statutory reply period of four months - AECC decision to open an administrative inquiry - No position adopted by the AECC within the statutory reply period as to the reality of the alleged psychological harassment - Concept of decision impliedly rejecting the request for assistance - Non-existent act - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 178/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of an implied decision of the Parliament’s Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, allegedly made on 11 April 2015, rejecting the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms HF;

               3.

               Orders Ms HF to bear half of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-142/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-505/14: Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/54

         Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)
   (Case T-505/14)
   2014/C 292/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seven for all mankind LLC (Vernon, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer)

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

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 given in Case R 1277/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 4 4 43  222

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative Community trademarks containing the verbal element ‘Seven’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-262/06 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2006 by the Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case F-18/05, D v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/53

         Appeal brought on 18 September 2006 by the Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case F-18/05, D v Commission
   (Case T-262/06 P)
   (2006/C 294/109)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities

      Other party to the proceedings: 'D'
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 July 2006 in Case F-18/05, D v Commission;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the other pleas;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to the costs of the appeal, alternatively, reserve the costs for appraisal by the Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 12 July 2006, the annulment of which is sought in this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision of 4 May 2004 turning down the request for recognition that the disease from which the applicant is suffering is occupational in origin and ordered the Commission to pay all of the costs.
   In support of its application for annulment of that judgment, the Commission submits a plea alleging infringement of Community law, in particular Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in that the Tribunal treated as admissible an argument concerning the infringement of res judicata which, according to the Commission, was put forward by the applicant for the first time in the reply at first instance. Furthermore, the Commission submits that the Tribunal erred in law and/or misinterpreted the matters of law put forward by the parties, in particular by the Commission itself. As regards the assessment of the substantive arguments, the Commission maintains that the Tribunal infringed Community law, in particular Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the rules relating thereto, misconstrued the scope of the judgment in Case T-376/02 (1) and failed to meet its obligation to state reasons. It also submits that the Tribunal undermined the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  Case T-376/02 O v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-349 and II-1595.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative circular concerning Internet usage within the European Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
19.1.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 17/7
Article 87 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                   (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann               before that court between Office des produits wallons ASBL
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;           and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for               of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
which it has ruled:                                                        to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                           uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the
1.    Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87        Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rappor-
      EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, because it is charged      teur), acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
      only on direct sales of medicines by pharmaceutical laboratories,    and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
      a measure such as the tax introduced by Article 12 of Law            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
      No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding            Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
      for 1998 amounts to State aid to wholesale distributors only         which it has ruled:
      to the extent that the advantage in not being assessed to the tax
      on direct sales of medicines exceeds the additional costs that       For the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive
      they bear in discharging the public service obligations imposed      77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
      on them by national law.                                             the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                           value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ‘subsidies directly linked
2.    Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) is to be       to the price’ must be interpreted as covering only subsidies which
      interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a tax advantage        constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods
      enjoyed by undertakings entrusted with the operation of a public     or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.
      service such as those concerned in the main proceedings in so        It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts
      far as that advantage exceeds the additional costs of performing     before it, whether or not the subsidy constitutes such consideration.
      the public service.
3.    Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                           (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
      EC) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a
      situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where
      there is no connection with the provision of services.
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              (Third Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)                                                        of 13 September 2001
                       of 22 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European
                                                                              Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (1)
in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office
        des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (1)                      (Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative
                                                                           circular concerning Internet usage within the European
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable                         Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to
        amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)                   the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in
                                                                              part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
                            (2002/C 17/10)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central
In Case C-184/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes
EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi                     Priesemann, member of staff of the European Central Bank,
 ---pagebreak--- C 17/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.1.2002
residing in Frankfurt am Main, Marc van de Velde, member of             A)   Do Article 39 EC (formerly Article 48 of the EC Treaty)
staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Usingen-                     and Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1)
Kransberg, Germany, and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, member                     of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
of staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am              movement for workers within the Community permit a
Main, represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer                Member State to reserve the posts of captain and first
— appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of                 officer of its merchant ships to its own nationals? If the
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October                      reply is in the affirmative, may that reservation be
2000 in Case T-27/00 Staff Committee of the ECB and Others                   formulated in absolute terms (for all types of merchant
v ECB [2000] ECR-SC I-A-217 and II-987, seeking to have                      ships) or is it valid only in cases in which it is foreseeable
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being               and reasonable that it may be necessary for captains and
European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli, V. Saintot and                    first officers on board actually to carry out certain public
M. López Torres) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                  duties?
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
                                                                        B)   If the national provisions of a Member State exclude from
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 September 2001,
                                                                             the reservation of those posts to its nationals certain
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                             commercial shipping situations (defined on the basis of
                                                                             factors such as the gross tonnage of the ship, the cargo
                                                                             or number of passengers and the characteristics of its
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                               voyages) and, in those situations, allow citizens of other
                                                                             Member States of the European Union to have access to
                                                                             the posts in question, may that access be made subject to
2.    The Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Mr Priese-           the condition of reciprocity?
      mann, Mr Van de Velde and Ms Cerafogli shall pay the costs.
                                                                        (1) OJ English Special Edition 1968(II) P. 475.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                        Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Belgium
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Division                                         (Case C-435/01)
of the Sala De Lo Contencioso-administrativo by order of
that court of 4 October 2001 in the case of Colegio de
Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española, the State                                              (2002/C 17/13)
Administration and Asociación de Navieros Españoles
                             (ANAVE)
                         (Case C-405/01)                                An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
                          (2002/C 17/12)                                Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  1.   declare that, by failing within the time-limits prescribed
European Communities by an order of the Third Division of                    to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
the Sala De Lo Contencioso-administrativo (Chamber for                       provisions necessary to comply fully and correctly with
Contentious-Administrative Proceedings), which was received                  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1)
at the Court Registry on 15 October 2001, for a preliminary                  concerning integrated pollution prevention and control,
ruling in the case of Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante             or at any rate to notify the same to the Commission, the
Española, the State Administration and Asociación de Navieros              Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Españoles (ANAVE), on the following questions:                              under that directive;


title: Case C-484/01: Action brought on 13 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/47
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by the Commission                    European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the
                                                                        Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European
                         (Case C-484/01)                                Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 17 December 2001 by the Front
                                                                        National.
                          (2002/C 84/81)
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December             —     declare admissible the appeal brought by the Front
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 of the
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for                Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     find that there has been an infringement of Community
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                        law by the Court of First Instance,
the Court should:
                                                                        —     quash the limbs and grounds of the contested judgment
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and             in whole or in part,
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997              —     rule in accordance with the law, set aside the contested
      on health protection of individuals against the dangers of              judgment, or, in the alternative, remit the case to the
      ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure (1), or              Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      at any rate by failing to notify those measures to the                  pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
      Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                Justice,
      obligations under Article 14 of that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       —     order the European Parliament to pay the whole of the
                                                                              costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-389/01 (2); although the prescribed time-            —     Error of law as regards the application of Article 29(1) of
limit (13 May 2000) has expired, France has not yet adopted                   the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The
the majority of the provisions necessary in order to transpose                constitution of a parliamentary group united around a
the directive into national law.                                              common idea, solidarity consisting in the search for a
                                                                              balance between the rights of all MEP’s or parliamen-
                                                                              tarians, cannot be refused on the grounds of a lack of
(1) OJ L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001, p. 16.
                                                                              political affinity.
                                                                        —     Lack of legal basis on the review by the Parliament as to
                                                                              the conformity with Rule 29(1) of the ‘Rules of Procedure
                                                                              of the Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants’ (TDI
                                                                              group); infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                              and of the provisions of the rules: contrary to what is
Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by the Front                               stated by the Court of First Instance, Rule 180 does
National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 deliver-                      not give the Parliament power to monitor the correct
ed by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     application and interpretation of its Rules of Procedure;
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99,                            that rule solely allows the European Parliament to refer a
T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de                        matter to the competent committee for its opinion. The
Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the                      fact of having adopted a joint position and of constituting
                      European Parliament                                     a group in order to ensure that each MEP may exercise
                                                                              his parliamentary mandate in full constitutes political
                        (Case C-486/01 P)                                     affinity for the purposes of Rule 29(1). Contrary to
                                                                              paragraph 122 of the judgment, different component
                                                                              parts of the TDI group lodged documents in association
                          (2002/C 84/82)                                      with each other on several occasions.
                                                                        —     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment with
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2001                    regard to members of the TDI group: while the Court of
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    First Instance, in paragraph 165, seems to agree that there


title: Case T-356/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission
   (Case T-356/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)
   2012/C 355/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented: initially by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, and subsequently by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by L. Gyselen, F. Tuytschaever and F. Wijckmans, and subsequently by L. Gyselen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-503/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AK 47 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47)
   (Case T-503/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AK 47 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 145/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cybergun SA (Bondoufle, France) (represented by: S. Guyot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 645/2008-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG and Cybergun SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cybergun SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-317/11: Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/34

         Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG
   (Case C-317/11) (1)

   2013/C 9/57
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-248/04: Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ) against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-248/04)
   (2004/C 217/58)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ), Södertälje (Sweden), represented by D. Arts and F. Herbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 7 April 2004 by which the Commission approved Volvo's divestment of A shares through Ainax;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant states that the Commission's approval of the concentration between Volvo and Renault Vehicules Industriels (1) was conditional upon Volvo divesting its shares in Scania (the Scania undertaking). In the contested decision, the Commission accepted the divestiture proposals of Volvo according to which Volvo would transfer its remaining Scania shares to a subsidiary, Ainax. The applicant furthermore states that the Ainax shares would be distributed as dividend to the shareholders of Volvo.
   According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes the Scania undertaking provided for in the Commission's decision of 1 September 2000, as well as Article 6(1)(c) and 6(2) of Regulation 4064/89 (2).
   According to the applicant, the creation of an intermediate structure, Ainax, preserves the block of shares currently controlled by Volvo rather then dispersing it amongst the shareholders of Volvo. The applicant furthermore submits that because Renault has an approximate 20 % shareholding in Volvo, Renault controls approximately 20 % of Ainax which in turn controls approximately 25 % of Scania. The applicant therefore submits that the divestment structure grants Renault, and Volvo indirectly, a substantial influence over the applicant and a privileged inside knowledge of its business secrets. According to the applicant, it is therefore not able to act as an independent alternative to the Volvo/Renault VI group.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 1 September 2000 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.1980 - 3* VOLVO/RENAULT V.I.) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (OJ C 301, p. 23).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).


title: Case C-120/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Yeboah Kwadwo

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Yeboah Kwadwo
   (Case C-120/11)
   2011/C 145/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Yeboah Kwadwo

      Question referred

   In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation, the effectiveness of directives and the proportionality and effectiveness of coercive measures for the return of illegally staying foreign nationals, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude an illegally staying foreign national who has simply failed to comply with the deportation order and the removal order issued by the administrative authorities from incurring criminal liability and being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years if he fails to comply with the first removal order and up to five years if he fails to comply with subsequent orders issued by the Questore?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-323/05: Order of the President of the Court of  7 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-323/05) (1)

   (2006/C 154/38)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-432/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 17 July 2017 — Dermod Patrick O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 17 July 2017 — Dermod Patrick O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)
   (Case C-432/17)
   (2017/C 318/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dermod Patrick O'Brien

      Defendant: Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)

      Questions referred

   Does Directive 97/81 (1), and in particular clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed thereto concerning the principle of nondiscrimination, require that periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing the Directive should be taken into account when calculating the amount of the retirement pension of a part-time worker, if they would be taken into account when calculating the pension of a comparable full-time worker?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9)


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-494/99: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 94/56/EC)

text:
C 200/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14.7.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                           (Third Chamber)
                            of 5 April 2001                                                           of 5 April 2001
in Case C-325/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from                  in Case C-494/99: Commission of the European Communi-
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)]: G. van de                                        ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
           Water v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties                                     to transpose Directive 94/56/EC)
— Directive 92/12/EEC — Chargeability of duty — Release
for consumption of products subject to excise duty — Notion
     — Mere holding of a product subject to excise duty)                                              (2001/C 200/10)
                           (2001/C 200/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-494/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: M. Patakia and F. Benyon) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                                                                           N. Dafniou and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a declaration
In Case C-325/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                 that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative, to communicate
of the EC Treaty, from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                       to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws,
(Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
pending before that court between G. van de Water and                      in full with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November
Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpretation of                  1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February                 investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (OJ 1994
1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to                   L 319, p. 14), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                 obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council                  — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann
Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365,                     (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
p. 46) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-                   J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
mann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,            R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                   which it:
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
                                                                                the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992                  comply in full with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 Novem-
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and              ber 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as                     the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, the
amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994,                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
must be interpreted as meaning that the mere holding of a product                directive;
subject to excise duty within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that
directive constitutes a release for consumption where duty has not yet     2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
been levied on that product pursuant to the applicable provisions of
Community law and national legislation.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.


title: Case T-345/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015  — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative proceedings — European market for hydrogen peroxide and perborate — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice — Obligation to state reasons — Confidentiality — Professional secrecy — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-345/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceedings - European market for hydrogen peroxide and perborate - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Professional secrecy - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 089/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Akzo Chemicals Holding AB, established in (Bohus, Sweden); Eka Chemicals AB (Farjevagen, Sweden) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, M. Kellerbauer and G. Meessen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Funke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3533 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding and Eka Chemicals pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Chemicals Holding AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-489/09: Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Leali v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/43

         Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Leali v Commission
   (Case T-489/09)
   2010/C 37/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Leali SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final in Case COMP. 37 956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption — adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009.

               —

               —

               Reduce the amount of the fine imposed.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-472/09 SP v Commission.


title: Case T-184/08: Action brought on 12 May 2008 — Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/55

         Action brought on 12 May 2008 — Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos v Commission
   (Case T-184/08)
   (2008/C 209/99)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos (Rominha, Alvaiázere, Portugal) (represented by A. Marques Fernandes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the European Commission's decision, adopted in connection with Case 89 0488 P1, notified to the applicant on 3 March 2008, deciding that the applicant must be required to repay the sum of EUR 25 485,00, equivalent to PTE 5 109 287.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The training programme was carried out in full.
   The auditors used criteria far removed from reality and for reasons quite foreign to the applicant they treated costs as ineligible.
   All the expenditure ought to have been regarded as eligible and taken into consideration in the final account.
   After the lapse of twenty years, repayment of any amount is flagrant injustice and runs counter to the fundamental principles of proportionality and of certainty for citizens before the law and the institutions.


title: Case T-127/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — KME Germany and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper industrial tubes — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Actual impact on the market — Size of the market concerned — Duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — KME Germany and Others v Commission
   (Case T-127/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the market concerned - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2009/C 153/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG (Osnabruck, Germany); KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA (Courbevoie, France); and KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf and M. Piergiovanni, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, Agent, assisted by C. Thomas, Solicitor)

      Re:

               (1)

               Application for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by Article 2(c)(d) and (e) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 Industrial tubes); and (2) Counterclaim by the Commission that the amount of those fines be increased

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004.


title: Case T-124/10: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/23

         Order of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA)
   (Case T-124/10) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 429/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and M. Schaeffer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Vinotasia GmbH (Coblenz, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2010 (Case R 1054/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Vinotasia GmbH and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the action.

               2.

               Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Vinotasia GmbH shall bear their own costs and each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2015.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 February 1997 in Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
No C 131 / 16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 4 . 97
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.
                        of 5 February 1997                              Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
                                                                        an order on 6 February 1997, in which it:
in Case T-49/96: H. v. Commission of the European
                           Communities (')
(Officials — Action for damages — Objection of                          1 . dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
                           inadmissibility)
                            ( 97/C 131 /39 )                            2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)                          (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
In Case T-49/96 : H, a former official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing at Brussels,
represented initially by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —                                               of 20 February 1997
application for compensation for the material and non-                  in Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba and Others v.
material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.                         Commission of the European Communities ( l )
Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briët and A. Potocki,                                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 February
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                                                 ( 97/C 131 /41 )
 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                          (Language of the case: Danish)
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                   In Case T-139/96 : MD Foods Amba, established in Viby
                                                                        ( Denmark ), and Dansk Mejeriers Fællesorganisation,
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                       established in Århus ( Denmark ), represented by G. Lett,
                                                                        Advokat, and N. Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R.
                                                                        Assa, 1 Rue J. P. Brasseur, against Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities ( Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues
                                                                        and H. Støvlbæk ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                        Commission Regulation (EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 June
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1996 on the registration of geographical indications and
                         of 6 February 1997                             designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
                                                                        Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 ( OJ
 in Case T-64/96: Filippo de Jorio v. Council of the                    No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 19 96, p. 1 ) in so far as concerns the
                         European Union ( 1 )                            registration of feta as a protected designation of origin —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
 (Allowances of members of the Economic and Social                       R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
 Committee — Action for annulment — Action for
                                                                        Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 February
    declaration of failure to act — Manifest inadmissibility)            1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                             ( 97/C 131 /40
                                                                         1 . Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-139/96 MD Foods
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                             Amba and Dansk Mejeriers Fællesorganisation v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities, in order
                                                                             to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the
 In Case T-64/96 : Filippo de Jorio, member of the                           application for annulment.
 Economic and Social Committee of the European
 Communities, represented by Lucio Filippo Longo, of the
 Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  2.   The costs are reserved.
 the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
 Hardt, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:
 Maria Cristina Giorgi and Therese Blanchet) —                           (') OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
 applications under Articles 173 and 175 of the EC Treaty
 relating to allowances of members of the Economic and
  Social Committee — the Court of First Instance (Third


title: Case T-329/99: Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino and Others against the European Parliament

text:
4.3.2000                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 63/25
According to the applicant, that decision is vitiated on the              Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
grounds put forward in a separate application for annulment               Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
of a similar decision (Case T-179/99 Sud Pesca Srl) (1). With                                         munities
specific reference to the present case, the applicant alleges the
following:                                                                                (Case T-328/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/50)
— failure to comply with essential procedural requirements:
     the Genoa customs authority directly issued new claims                                 (Language of the case: English)
     for recovery of the duties without any inter partes procedure
     and without making any checks via the Turkish authorities.
     At the same time, the customs authority stated that the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     claims were intended solely to stop time running and                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     suggested that traders apply for non-subsequent entry in             European Communities on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
     the accounts. It also told the various subordinate customs           Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
     offices not to release subsequent imports of a similar kind          of 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1JU, United Kingdom.
     unless security was lodged, in accordance with the deferred
     taxation procedure, pending the outcome of such claims.              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     In so doing, the Italian customs authorities acted in breach
     of the right to appeal revised customs claims;                       — order the defendant to adopt all measures necessary to
                                                                               protect the professional reputation of the applicant;
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR
— the checks made by the Commission’s inspectors cannot                        400 000 to the applicant;
     be relied upon — as regards the finding of third-country
     origin on which the customs claims rely — in so far as               — order the defendant to bear the costs.
     they were carried out unilaterally and have been challenged
     by the exporter;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In 1995 the applicant submitted to the Commission under
— lack of direct, or even indirect or putative, evidence as to            Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a
     the non-Turkish origin of the product imported by the                finding that the General Council of the Bar, an authority in the
     applicant;                                                           field of the provision of legal services in the United Kingdom,
                                                                          had infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC. At the same time it
                                                                          requested the Commission to adopt interim measures. The
                                                                          applicant now seeks compensation for the damage occasioned
                                                                          to him by the unlawful failure of the Commission to adopt the
— the conditions precluding subsequent entry in the accounts              interim measures requested.
     are satisfied, in so far as the importer has shown good faith
     and complied with the legislation in force, and the customs
     authorities have acted — albeit passively — in error.
The applicant also challenges the reference in the contested              Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino
decision to the concept of commercial risk.                                       and Others against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-329/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/51)
( 1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 29.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino and Others, with
                                                                          Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand
                                                                          Sablon.
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.3.2000
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Spedition
                                                                         Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L. against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
— annul the contested decision;
                                                                                (Case T-330/99)
— in the alternative, declare to be unlawful and therefore
     inapplicable Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the                                  (2000/C 63/52)
     European Parliament, in conjunction with Article 30
     thereof;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 November 1999 by Spedition
                                                                         Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L., of Flensburg (Germany),
                                                                         represented by Axel Suhr, Rechtsanwalt, of Hamburg (Germ-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          any), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Messrs De Bandt, van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11
                                                                         Rue Goethe.
By the present action, the Members of the European Parliament
on the ‘Emma Bonino List’, and the List as such — a European
manifestation of the political party to which they belong —              The applicant claims that the Court should:
seek annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 14 September
1999 declaring that Article 29(1) of the Parliament’s Rules of           (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Procedure precludes the creation of a group entitled ‘technical               Communities of 22 July 1999 (REM 22/98);
group of independent Members — mixed group’ comprising
inter alia the applicants.
                                                                         (2) in its judgment, require the defendant, pursuant to
                                                                              Article 233 EC, to grant the original applications for
                                                                              remission; and
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
raised in Case T-222/99 J.C. Martinez and Charles de Gaulle (1).
                                                                         (3) order the defendant to pay the costs.
In particular, it is submitted that the Parliament is in breach of
the fundamental principles of democracy, non-discrimination              Pleas in law and main arguments
and proportionality.
                                                                         The applicant forwarded goods from Germany to Spain as a
                                                                         principal in the context of the external Community transit
The applicants also submit that Articles 29 and 30 of the                procedure. Customs investigations indicated that the goods
Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are unlawful, should the Court           had not been properly presented at the customs office of
of First Instance find that preclusion of the group in question          destination, and that completion of the transit procedures had
does not follow from the incorrect — in their view —                     merely been feigned. By its contested decision, the Commission
interpretation espoused in the contested decision but directly           refused the application made by the German authorities for
from Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure, possibly in                remission of payment by the applicant of the customs debt
conjunction with Article 30 thereof. They maintain that the              arising. From a legal standpoint, the applicant bases its claim
faults which allegedly vitiate the contested decision are directly       in particular on the assertion that the situation represents a
attributable to the above provisions.                                    special case within the meaning of Article 899 of Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 2454/93, since it was legitimately entitled to expect
                                                                         that administrative tasks would not be performed by customs
                                                                         officials acting fraudulently. That was what happened in the
(1) Not yet published.                                                   present case, however, since the fraudulent procedures could
                                                                         not have been carried out without the complicity of a servant
                                                                         of the customs authority concerned.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-288/03 P: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/9

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-288/03 P: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   (2005/C 19/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-288/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 3 July 2003, Bernard Zaoui, residing at Combs-la-Ville (France), Lucien Zaoui, residing at Netanya (Israel), Déborah Stain, née Zaoui, residing at Ramat Gan (Israel) the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper, F. Dintilhac and C. Tufvesson) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 14 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Bernard Zaoui, Mr Lucien Zaoui and Mrs Déborah Stain, née Zaoui, shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case T-578/17: Action brought on 26 August 2017 — A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain v Commission

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/20

         Action brought on 26 August 2017 — A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain v Commission
   (Case T-578/17)
   (2017/C 338/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Heise and M. Lindner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on the non-fiscal aid measures put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others) — SA.43145 (2016/FC) (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:
   Infringement of essential formal and procedural requirements under Article 108(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 4(4) and 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

               —

               The Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights in so far as its decision, which is the subject of the action, was adopted after merely a preliminary examination, even though the Commission was required to open a formal investigation. The applicant bases this argument on the fact that the Commission, having a duty to carry out an assessment of the information and evidence at its disposal, ought to have been concerned about the compatibility of the non-fiscal aid measures unlawfully put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others).

               —

               In so far as the Commission only inadequately or, moreover, in substantial aspects incorrectly examined the information and evidence giving rise to those concerns in the decision which is the subject of the action, the applicant further argues that the Commission failed to meet its obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case C-249/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/19

         Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-249/07)
   (2007/C 183/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and S.B. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by introducing a system of prior authorisation for oysters and mussels that come lawfully from other Member States, belong to species indigenous to the Netherlands and are intended to be planted in Netherlands coastal waters, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Netherlands legislation prohibiting the planting, without prior authorisation, of oysters and mussels originating from other Member States impedes intra-Community trade and market access for oysters and mussels from other Member States.
   This national rule cannot be justified.


title: Case C-370/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Discriminatory taxation of the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings established in Norway or Iceland and not authorised under Directive 85/611/EEC)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-370/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Discriminatory taxation of the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings established in Norway or Iceland and not authorised under Directive 85/611/EEC)
   2012/C 194/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Discriminatory taxation of the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings established in Norway or Iceland and not authorised under Directive 85/611/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining rules according to which the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings, more than 40 % of the assets of which is invested in debt securities, and which are not authorised under Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), are not taxable where those undertakings are established in Belgium, whereas the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in such undertakings established in Norway or Iceland are taxable, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.