title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 November 1997 in Case T-26/89 (125): Henri de Compte v. European Parliament (Officials - Application for revision - Admissibility)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 387/ 17
sector (Ilva group ) ( OJ 1994 L 112, p. 64 ) — the Court of               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                                          of 5 November 1997
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.
Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                      in Case T- 149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October                              Commission of the European Communities (')
1997, in which it:
                                                                         (State aid — Restructuring aid — Commission decision —
                                                                                Annulment — Admissibility)
1 . dismisses the application;                                                                        ( 97/C 387/29 )
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs of the defendant                              (Language of the case: French)
     and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
                                                                         In Case T-149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,
                                                                         established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the
3 . orders the Council and the Italian Republic to bear                  Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     their own costs.
                                                                         the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents :
(>) OJ C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                           initially Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Xavier Lewis )
                                                                         supported by CMF S.p.A. and CMF Sud S.p.A. ,
                                                                         established in Pignatero Maggiore, Italy, represented by
                                                                         Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                         Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
                                                                         Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill —
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Application for annulment of the decision reproduced in
                         of 5 November 1997                              Commission Notice 95/C 120/03 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the EC Treaty to other Member States and other parties
in Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte v. European                     concerned regarding aid which Italy granted to CMF Sud
                              Parliament (')                             S.p.A. and CMF S.p.A. [ State aid C 6/92 ( ex NN 149/91 )]
                                                                         ( OJ C 120, 16 . 5 . 1995 , p. 4 ) — the Court of
    (Officials — Application for revision — Admissibility)               First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),
                              ( 97/C 387/28 )                            composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. P. Briët, A.
                                                                         Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator for the Registrar; has
                   (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 November 1997, in which it :
In Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte, a former official               1 . dismisses the application;
of the European Parliament, represented initially by
Francesco Pasetti Bombardella, of the Venice Bar, and                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
subsequently by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with                   of the interveners.
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Guy Harles, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. European
                                                                         (') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Parliament ( Agents : Francois Vainker and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for revision of the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 17 October 1991 in Case
T-26/89 de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1991 ] ECR
11-781 — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
judgment on 5 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows :                                                                               ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 November 1997
 1 . the application for revision is dismissed as being                  in Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett v. Commission of the
      inadmissible;                                                                          European Communities (')
                                                                              (Officials — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
 2 . the applicant seeking revision is ordered to pay the                                              ( 97/C 387/30 )
      costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ C 89 , 6 . 4 . 1988 .
                                                                          In Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett, official of the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,


title: Case C-678/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Annex III — Reduced rate of VAT applicable to medical equipment, aids and other appliances and pharmaceutical products)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-678/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Annex III - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to medical equipment, aids and other appliances and pharmaceutical products))
   (2015/C 236/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies:

                           —

                           of medical equipment, aids and other appliances which are not reserved for the exclusive personal use of the disabled or which are not normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, and

                           —

                           of products which are not pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses and as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, including products used for contraception and sanitary protection,

                     under headings 82, 92 and 103 of annex No 3 of the Law on tax on goods and services (Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004 the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III of that Directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-117/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Cargill v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Individual concern — Admissibility — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Cargill v Council
   (Case T-117/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 402/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cargill SACI (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern Cargill SACI;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Cargill;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-50/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-50/06)
   (2006/C 96/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou-Durande and Rudi Troosters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not applying to citizens of the European Union Council Directive 64/221/EEC (1) of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, but rather applying to them general legislation on aliens which makes it possible to establish a systematic and automatic connection between a criminal conviction and an expulsion measure, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 64/221/EEC;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 8(e) of the Netherlands Vreemdelingenwet (Law on Aliens) 2000 provides that an alien will be lawfully resident in the Netherlands as a Community national only on condition that that national is resident on the basis of a rule, including a rule pursuant to the EC Treaty.
   Most of the provisions of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 are otherwise applicable in full to 'aliens' in general, that term being construed, in accordance with Article 1(m) of the Law, as also covering nationals of a Member State of the EU. As such, no reference is made in the Vreemdelingenwet to Directive 64/221/EEC and the principles contained in that directive are not incorporated in the text of the Law. A fortiori, the obligations resulting from Directive 64/221/EEC have not been transposed in a clear and unambiguous manner in that legislation.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117.


title: Case C-142/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bright Service, S.A. v Repsol Comercial de productos petrolíferos, S.A.

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bright Service, S.A. v Repsol Comercial de productos petrolíferos, S.A.
   (Case C-142/13)
   2013/C 178/02
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bright Service, S.A.

      Defendant: Repsol Comercial de productos petrolíferos, S.A.

      Questions referred

   When examining a vertical agreement — containing a non-compete obligation — which [was] already in force on 31 May 2000 and which satisfies the conditions laid down in Regulation No 1984/1983, (1) but which does not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation No 2790/1999, (2) given that the supplier which is a party to the agreement holds a market share which exceeds 30 % (Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2790/1999) and the duration of the non-compete obligation exceeds five years and the contract goods are sold by the buyer from premises and land which are not owned by the supplier (Article 5(a) of Regulation No 2790/1999):

               (a)

               must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 be interpreted as meaning that, as of 1 January 2002, the agreement and, more specifically, the non-compete obligation, are not covered by the exemptions provided for in Regulations Nos 1984/1983 and 2790/1999, and must it be examined on an individual basis whether they are consistent with Article 81(1) EC?

               (b)

               or, must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 be interpreted as meaning that the maximum duration of five years for a non-compete obligation laid down in Article 5(a) of Regulation No 2790/19999 is to be applied to the agreement, with the result that the agreement and, in particular, the non-compete obligation are covered, from 1 January 2002, for a further period of five years expiring on 31 December 2006?

               (c)

               or, finally, must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 be interpreted as meaning that the agreement containing a non-compete obligation is covered, from 1 January 2002, for a further period of five years, expiring on 31 December 2006, where the remaining validity of the non-compete obligation — until 1 January 2002 — does not exceed five years, but is not, by contrast, covered by the exemptions, and that it needs to be determined on an individual basis whether it is consistent with Article 81(1) EC where the remaining validity of the non-compete obligation — until 1 January 2002 — exceeds five years?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).


title: Case C-366/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — DNA Verkot Oy, intervener: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — DNA Verkot Oy, intervener: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto
   (Case C-366/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/58)

      Language of the case: Finnish

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 December 1998 in Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/25
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for                                     of 3 December 1998
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                      in Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia v Commission
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as                                     of the European Communities (1)
supplemented       by Commission         Regulation (EEC)                                  (Taxation of costs)
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended                                      (1999/C 71/48)
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.                        (Language of the case: English)
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                 In Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia, resident in
                                                                     Athens, represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens
                                                                     Bar, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.                Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for taxation of
                                                                     costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                     of 21 March 1996 in Case T-230/94 Farrugia v
2. The defendants are to pay the costs.                              Commission [1996] ECR II-195 Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
(1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.                                              President, C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 December 1998, the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     The total amount of costs to be paid by the Commission
                                                                     to the applicant is fixed at GRD 1 200 000.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     (1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                     of 4 December 1998
in Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                      (Taxation of costs)
                        (1999/C 71/47)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 16 November 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97: Netherlands
In Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association,
                                                                     Antilles v Council of the European Union and
established at Wexham Springs (United Kingdom), Blue
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
Circle Industries Plc, established in London, Castle
Cement Ltd, established at Peterborough (United                      (Disjoinder Ð Stay of proceedings Ð Disclaimer of
Kingdom), and Rugby Group Plc, established at Rugby                                            jurisdiction)
(United Kingdom), represented by David Lyon, of the Bar
                                                                                (1999/C 71/49)
of England and Wales, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Eric White) Ð application for
taxation of costs pursuant to the judgment of the Court of                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
First Instance of 6 July 1995 in Joined Cases T-447/93,
T-448/93 and T-449/93 AITEC and Others v Commission
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-163/97: Netherlands Antilles,
[1995] ECR II-1971 Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. Meij
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
on 4 December 1998, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber
follows:
                                                                     and Guus Houttuin) and Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by
The total amount of the costs recoverable by the                     Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez de Ayala Becerril)
applicants in Case T-448/93 is fixed in the sum of GBP               and Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and
90 000.                                                              Francesca Quadri); and T-179/97: Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
(1) OJ C 121, 13.5.1992.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber


title: Case C-56/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal (Directives 92/40/EEC and 2005/94/EC — Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16, 17 and 47 — Measures for the control of avian influenza — Compensation for damage)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal
   (Case C-56/13) (1)

   ((Directives 92/40/EEC and 2005/94/EC - Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16, 17 and 47 - Measures for the control of avian influenza - Compensation for damage))
   2014/C 253/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt

      Respondent: Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (OJ 1992 L 167, p. 1) and Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (OJ 2006 L 10, p. 16) — Undertaking engaged in agricultural activities relating to the keeping of animals, including the fattening of turkeys, refused permission to keep turkeys for fattening in a rearing enclosure located in a protection and surveillance zone established by administrative decision in respect of avian influenza — Compensation for damage caused to individuals by interim protection measures taken in the course of implementation of EU legislation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Commission Decisions 2006/105/EC of 15 February 2006 concerning certain interim protection measures in relation to suspected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in Hungary and 2006/115/EC of 17 February 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community and repealing Decisions 2006/86/EC, 2006/90/EC, 2006/91/EC, 2006/94/EC, 2006/104/EC and 2006/105/EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude (i) national measures such as the administrative decisions of 15 and 21 February 2006 ordering the establishment of a protection zone in the administrative territory of Csátalja and Nagybaracska (Hungary) and prohibiting the movement of poultry within that zone or (ii) an administrative opinion such as that of 23 February 2006, refusing to grant an undertaking such as the appellant in the main proceedings permission to keep turkeys in its rearing enclosure at Nagybaracska.

               2.

               First, Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115 must be interpreted to the effect that they neither include nor refer to any provisions establishing a system of compensation for damage caused by the measures for which they provide and, second, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings — which does not provide for full compensation, including in respect of loss of profit, for damage sustained as a result of the adoption, in accordance with EU law, of national protection measures against avian influenza — in the light of the right to an effective remedy, the right to property and the freedom to conduct a business.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-162/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — CW v Council

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/27

         Action brought on 25 September 2012 — CW v Council
   (Case T-162/12)
   2012/C 355/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CW (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently, declare Decision 2012/50/CFSP null and void in all its effects, in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs, as well as EUR 2 500 000 in respect of non-recoverable expenses.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, alleging (i) an infringement of the rules of procedure and the rights of the defence; (ii) a lack of legal basis; (iii) an infringement of Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1) and an insufficient statement of reasons; (iv) an error of assessment; and (v) a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and of entrepreneurial freedom.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 March 1998 in Case T-181/97: Huguette Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Action for annulment - Remuneration statements - Inadmissibility - Time-limits - New substantial fact - Time-bar)

text:
C 151/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.5.98
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Araujo, officials of the Court of Justice of the European
                       of 16 March 1998                            Communities,        residing    respectively   in   Mamer
                                                                   (Luxembourg), Luxembourg, Mersch (Luxembourg),
in Case T-235/95: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of               Luxembourg and Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by
                the European Communities (1)                       Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                                                                   of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the
(Action for annulment Ð Request for interim measures to
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange v.
be taken by the Commission Ð Powers of the
                                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent:
Commission Ð Confirmatory act Ð Lack of interest in
                                                                   Mr Timothy Millett) Ð application for the annulment of
          bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                   the express decisions rejecting the applicants' requests for
                         (98/C 151/15)                             reimbursement of the sums deducted from their household
                                                                   allowance pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff
                                                                   Regulations of officials of the European Communities on
               (Language of the case: English)                     the ground of the household grant received by their
                                                                   spouses under the collective agreement covering
In Case T-235/95, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,           Luxembourg bank employees, and, so far as may be
represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3                necessary, of the decisions of 17 March 1997 expressly
Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against                    rejecting their complaints, the Court of First Instance
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                     (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
Richard Lyal) Ð application for annulment of the                   President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; Registrar:
Commission's decision of 16 October 1995 refusing both             H. Jung, made an order on 24 March 1998, the operative
to reconsider its decision to reject the request for interim       part of which is as follows:
measures submitted by the applicant in the context of a
procedure seeking a declaration that the General Medical
Council had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty          1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
and to adopt certain other interim measures requested by
the applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                   2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
16 March 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:          (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those
    in the interlocutory proceedings before the President
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                                of 25 March 1998
( ) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
 1
                                                                   in Case T-202/97: Louis Koopman v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Classification in step Ð Seniority Ð
                                                                       Article 90 of the Staff Regulations Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 151/17)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 24 March 1998                                            (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-181/97: Huguette Meyer and Others v. Court of
          Justice of the European Communities (1)                  In Case T-202/97: Louis Koopman, official of the
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Remuneration                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
statements Ð Inadmissibility Ð Time-limits Ð New                   Keerbergen (Belgium), represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of
                 substantial fact Ð Time-bar)                      the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 Rue de
                         (98/C 151/16)                             Cessange, against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and
                (Language of the case: French)                     Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for the
                                                                   annulment of the decision of the Commission of
                                                                   21 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request to be
In Case T-181/97 Huguette Meyer, IneÁs Bruno, Alba                 reclassified pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 32
Muller di Lenardo, Maria da Paz Gomez and LeÂonore                 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European


title: Case T-230/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — HTC Sweden/OHIM — Vermop Salmon (TWISTER)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/15

         Action brought on 22 April 2013 — HTC Sweden/OHIM — Vermop Salmon (TWISTER)
   (Case T-230/13)
   2013/C 178/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HTC Sweden AB (Söderköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Overturn the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2013, joined Cases R 1873/2011-1 and R 1881/2011-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘TWISTER’ for goods in classes 3, 7 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 4 617 932

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application of invalidity was based on Articles 53(1)(a) and 8 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2003 in Case T-129/01: José Alejandro, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier national word marks BUD — Application for Community word mark BUDMEN — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/31
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 9 July 2003
                                                                           in Case T-156/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for
                           of 3 July 2003                                  Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
in Case T-129/01: José Alejandro, SL v Office for Harmon-
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                   (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings —
                              (OHIM) (1)                                   Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Earlier
                                                                           figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —
                                                                           Application for Community word mark GIORGIO AIRE —
                                                                           Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier                     No 40/94 — Proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of
national word marks BUD — Application for Community                                               Regulation No 40/94)
word mark BUDMEN — Relative ground for refusal —
            Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/60)
                          (2003/C 213/59)                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           In Case T-156/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
                                                                           i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v
                                                                           Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo
In Case T-129/01, José Alejandro SL, established in Alicante               Carrillo): Action brought against the decision of the First Board
(Spain), represented by I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer, v Office              of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2001 (Case
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego and J.F. Crespo                  R 258/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
Carrillo); Intervener, Anheuser-Busch Inc., established in Saint           composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi, and M. Vilaras,
Louis, Missouri (United States), represented by V. von                     Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
Bomhard, lawyer: Action brought against the decision of the                9 July 2003, in which it:
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2001
(Case R 230/2000-1), concerning an opposition procedure                    1.     Dismisses the application;
between Anheuser-Busch Inc. and José Alejandro SL, the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                     2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which it:
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
1.     Dismisses the action;


title: Case T-54/13: Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/22

         Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS)
   (Case T-54/13)
   2013/C 101/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Schemmerhofen, Germany) (represented by M. Wekwerth, lawyer)

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

      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 15 November 2012 in Case R 2544/2011-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘FICKEN LIQUORS’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 32, 33 and 35

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


C 35/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                    7.2.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-124/03 (1)                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-161/03: Cascades S.A. v Commission of the European
                         (2004/C 35/37)                                   Communities.
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the register of Case T-124/03: AES Drax Power Limited v
Commission of the European Communities.                                          Removal from the register of Case T-243/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/40)
(1) OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the First
       Removal from the register of Case T-127/03 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2004/C 35/38)                                   T-243/03: Guardant, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.
By order of 7 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-127/03: Antoinette Pascucci v Europol.
(1) OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.                                                      Removal from the register of Case T-244/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/41)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case T-161/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/39)                                   By order of 15 October 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                          T-244/03: Flavia Angeletti v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
By order of 4 November 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    (1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case T-386/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark elite BY MONDARIZ — Earlier Community and international figurative marks ELITE — Language of appeal proceedings — Time-limits — Admissibility of an appeal to the Board of Appeal — Rule 48(2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ)
   (Case T-386/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark elite BY MONDARIZ - Earlier Community and international figurative marks ELITE - Language of appeal proceedings - Time-limits - Admissibility of an appeal to the Board of Appeal - Rule 48(2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 175/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL (Mondariz, Spain) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2012 (Case R 9/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 June 2012 (Case R 9/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Elite Licensing Company;

               3.

               Orders Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Action brought on 19 June 1998 by A. Alferink and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-94/98)

text:
C 358/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
Action brought on 19 June 1998 by A. Alferink and                  Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard
Others against the Commission of the European                      France against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                                       Communities
                        (Case T-94/98)                                                    (Case T-133/98)
                         (98/C 358/31)                                                     (98/C 358/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 August
Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1998               1998 by Hewlett Packard France, the registered office of
by A. Alferink and others, all residing in the Netherlands,        which is at Courcouronnes (France), represented by
represented by H. J. Bronkhorst, of the Hague Bar, and             Fabrice Goguel and Anne Trager, of the Paris Bar, with an
E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels Bar, with an              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of T.            Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.
Loesch, 11 rue Goethe.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Commission Decision 98/406/EC published on
                                                                        pages 45 and 46 of the Official Journal of the
Ð order the Commission to pay the sums specified in the                 European Communities of 23 June 1998, requiring
     application by way of compensation for the damage                  the revocation of binding Tariff Information No
     suffered by the applicants as a result of the defective            FR 12030199700151, which had correctly classified
     enactment of Article 3(a) of Commission Regulation                 HP JetDirect EX Plus (and Ex Plus 3) machines under
     (EEC) No 1546/88 (1), together with interest thereon               heading 8471.80.10;
     at the rate of 8 % per annum from 23 February 1998
     until the date of full settlement;
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under French law
                                                                   which imports into France and manufactures in that
                                                                   country hardware and software for use in the operation of
The applicants, all of whom are SLOM farmers who have              local area networks' (LANs), contests the revocation of
made use of business assets leased from third parties,             Binding Tariff Information No FR 12030199700151
complain that the Commission has acted unlawfully by               issued by the French customs authorities, which classified
enacting defective legislation. They consider that the             HP JetDirect EX Plus/Ex Plus 3 machines under heading
interpretation applied to the abovementioned provision Ð           8471.80.10 in accordance with the combined Community
according to which, before a definitive reference quantity         nomenclature. The machines in question consist of an
can be allocated, milk production must be resumed by the           electronic card of the Jet Direct type which is inserted in a
original SLOM undertaking or through the same                      unit linked to one or more printers, enabling several
economic and organisational unit as originally existed at          computers within a local area network to have access to
the time when the SLOM undertaking was entered into Ð              and control of that printer or those printers. As a result of
is inconsistent with the wording of the article in question,       the contested revocation decision, the French Directorate-
with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 (2) and with              General of Customs has had to classify the machine in
the rules implementing it. The Commission has not clearly          question under heading 8517.50.
formulated the restriction which it sought to introduce
and has thus breached the principle of due diligence.
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the
                                                                   defendant has incorrectly assessed the general rules for the
(1) OJ L 139, 4.6.1988, p. 12.                                     interpretation of the combined nomenclature, laid down in
(2) OJ L 131, 26.5.1977, p. 1.                                     Section 1.A of Part I of Annex I to Council Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
                                                                   statistical nomenclature and on the common customs
                                                                   tariff, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2509/97.


title: Case C-129/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA
   (Case C-129/17)
   (2017/C 161/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV

      Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Do Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) cover the right of the trade-mark proprietor to oppose the removal, by a third party, without the consent of the trade-mark proprietor, of all signs identical to the trade marks which had been applied to the goods (debranding), in the case where the goods concerned have never previously been traded within the European Economic Area, such as goods placed in a customs warehouse, and where the removal by the third party occurs with a view to importing or placing those goods on the market within the European Economic Area?

                           (b)

                           Does it make any difference to the answer to Question (a) above whether the importation of those goods or their placing on the market within the European Economic Area occurs under its own distinctive sign applied by the third party (rebranding)?

               2.

               Does it make any difference to the answer to the first question whether the goods thus imported or placed on the market are, on the basis of their outward appearance or model, still identified by the relevant average consumer as originating from the trade-mark proprietor?

      (1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

      (2)  (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of C-290/96

text:
No C 74/ 18             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 3 . 97
          Removal from the register of C-290/96 ( ')                              Removal from the register of C-3 14/94 (')
                               97/C 74/36 )                                                           ( 97/C 74/37)
                                                                         By order of 18 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 27 November 1996 the President of the Court                  of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                  removal from the register of Case C-3 14/94 ( reference for
removal from the register of Case C-290/96 : Commission                  a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia
of the European Communities v. Ireland.                                 del Pais Vasco ( Sala de lo Social )): Maria Luisa Alonso
                                                                        Bernardez ( widow of Edelmiro Nunez Santos ) v. Instituto
 (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                        la Seguridad Social .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 12 December 1996                                                      of 12 December 1996
in Case T-358/94: Compagnie Nationale Air France v.                     in Case T-130/95 : X v. Commission of the European
        Commission of the European Communities H                                                  Communities H
(State aid — Air transport — Airline company in a critical              (Officials   —     Promotion         —    Consideration of     the
                        financial situation)                            candidates ' comparative merits — Staff report — Delay in
                                                                          drawing it up — Action for annulment and for damages)
                             ( 97/C 74/38 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/39 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-358/94 : Compagnie Nationale Air France,
having its registered office in Paris, represented by                   In Case T-130/95 : X, an official of the Commission of the
Dominique Borde and Andre Moquet, of the Bars of Paris                  European Communities, represented by Carlo Revoldini,
and Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 of the Luxembourg Bar, 180 route de Longwy, with an
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the
against Commission of the European Communities                          latter, against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Ben Smulders and Ami Barav) — application for                 ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto dal Ferro ) —
annulment of Commission Decision 94/662/EC of 27 July                   application for annulment of the decision of the
1994 concerning the subscription by CDC-Participations                  Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4
to bonds issued by Air France ( OJ No L 258 , 6 . 10 . 1994,            under the 1994 promotion procedure and for damages —
p. 26 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,                the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
Extended Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner,                      B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briet and A. Potocki,
President, B. Vesterdorf,              C. W.       Bellamy, A.         Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio                      Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996, the
Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 12 December                 operative part of which is as follows:
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . The application is dismissed.
                                                                       2 . The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                               those of the applicant.
H OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                         (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Application to include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit - Rejection by the Commission - Action for annulment - Admissibility)

text:
C 265/10                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.9.1999
4. The Commission is required to pay that sum within a period of            2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
     two months from the date on which the present judgment is                   incurred by the applicant.
     notified to it, failing which the amount payable shall be increased
     by default interest at the rate of 5 % per annum with effect from      3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
     the date of expiry of that period.
5. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 8 of 11.1.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                             of 6 July 1999
                            of 22 April 1999                                in Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)                             (Officials — Temporary staff — Grading — Article 31(2)
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Duty to have regard for the
                                                                            welfare and interests of officials — Erroneous notice —
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to include a
                                                                                Protection of legitimate expectations)
recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of
substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —
Rejection by the Commission — Action for annulment —                                                   (1999/C 265/18)
                              Admissibility)
                             (1999/C 265/17)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass, a member of the temporary
                      (Language of the case: English)                       staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of tht
In Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company, a company with its                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
seat in Saint-Louis, Missouri (USA), represented initially by               office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
Clive Stanbrook QC and Robert MacLean, Solicitor, and                       Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
subsequently by Mr Stanbrook and by Debra Holland, Barris-                  Currall) — application, first, for annulment of the decisions of
ter, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              the Commission of 22 July 1996 and 19 March 1997 inas-
of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaide v Commission                    much as they respectively classify the applicant in grade A 5,
of the European Communities (Agents: initially Richard Wain-                step 3, and refuse to classify the applicant in grade A 4
wright and Fernando Castillo de la Torre, subsequently                      pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials
M. Wainwright), supported by the French Republic (Agents:                   of the European Communities, and, second, for damages —
Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Frédéric Pascal, and Régine Loosli-                the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Surrans, and subsequently by Ms Rispal-Bellanger, Ms Loosli-                J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Surrans and Christina Vasak) — application for the annulment                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
of Commission Decision C(97) 148 final of 14 January 1997,                  1999, in which it:
rejecting the application by Monsanto Europe SA/NV for the
inclusion of Sometribove, a recombinant bovine somatotro-                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks an
phin (BST), in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC)                              order of the Court of First Instance requiring the defendant to
No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying clown a Community                              classify the applicant in a fixed grade and step.
procedurc for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin                2. Dismisses the application for annulment.
(OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and                        3. Dismisses the application for damages.
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 Apri1 1999, in which it:                         4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three
                                                                                quarters of the costs of the applicant.
1. Annuls Commission Decision C(97) 148 final of 14 January
     1997, rejecting the application by Monsanto Europe SA/NV for
     the inclusion of Sometribove in Annex II to Council Regulation         (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
     (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
     procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
     veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.


title: Case T-271/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2007 — Citymo v Commission (Contractual liability — Arbitration clause — Lease contract — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability — Pre-contract negotiations — Plea of illegality — Legitimate expectation — Good faith — Abuse of rights — Material loss — Lost opportunity)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2007 — Citymo v Commission
   (Case T-271/04) (1)

   (Contractual liability - Arbitration clause - Lease contract - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Pre-contract negotiations - Plea of illegality - Legitimate expectation - Good faith - Abuse of rights - Material loss - Lost opportunity)
   (2007/C 140/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Citymo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Ommeslaghe, I. Heenen and P.-M. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, and D. Philippe and M. Gouden, lawyers)
   Re:
   Principally, an action in contractual liability based on an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay to the applicant company damages for its repudiation of a lease contract allegedly concluded between it and the European Community, represented by the Commission, and, in the alternative, an action in non-contractual liability seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission's decision to halt pre-contractual negotiations relating to conclusion of that lease contract.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               The Commission shall be ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 together with late payment interest thereon to run from the date of delivery of this judgment to the date of actual payment at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by 2 points, provided that it does not exceed a rate of 6 %;

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed;

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2003 in Case C-246/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to comply with its obligations — Directive 91/439/EEC — Driving licences — Mutual recognition — Compulsory registration — Calculation of the duration of validity)

text:
C 200/2                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                23.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             the Decree of 18 June 1996, together with Article 109(5) of
                                                                                the 1994 Wegenverkeerswet, read in conjunction with
                                                                                Articles 11, 28 and 33 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen, the
                                                                                Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                          obligations under Articles 1(2) and 6(1)(c) of, and point 4 of
                                                                                Annex III to, Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991
                                                                                on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC
                                                                                of 23 July 1996;
                           of 10 July 2003
                                                                              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
in Case C-246/00: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
            nities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                              4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
(Failure by a Member State to comply with its obligations —
Directive 91/439/EEC — Driving licences — Mutual recog-                       (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
nition — Compulsory registration — Calculation of the
                         duration of validity)
                           (2003/C 200/02)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-329/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
In Case C-246/00, Commission of the European Communities                                           European Communities (1)
(Agents: M. Wolfcarius and H.M.H. Speyart) v Kingdom of the
Netherlands (Agent: A. Fierstra), supported by Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta), Application for a declara-               (EAGGF — Clearing of accounts — 1996 and 1997 finan-
tion that, by adopting and maintaining in force Articles 107(1),                     cial years — Compensation for banana producers)
108(1)(h), 109 and 111(1)(a) of the Wegenverkeerswet (Road
Traffic Law) of 21 April 1994 (Stbl. 1994 No 475), as amended
(Stbl. 1996 No 276) and Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbe-
                                                                                (2003/C 200/03)
wijzen (Decree on driving licences) of 28 May 1996
(Stbl. 1996 No 277), as amended by the Decree of 18 June
1996 (Stbl. 1996 No 326), the Kingdom of the Netherlands
has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(2)                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
and 6(1)(c) of, and point 4 of Annex III to, Council Directive
91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991
L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
23 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1), the Court (Sixth                                                the European Court Reports)
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                   In Case C-329/00: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:                 Lapuerta) against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: S. Pardo and M. Niejahr, assisted by J. Guerra
                                                                              Fernández) — application for annulment of Commission Deci-
                                                                              sion 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community
1.    Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force                     financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
      Articles 107(1), 108(1)(h) and Article 111(1)(a) of the                 under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
      Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic Law) of 21 April 1994, as                Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
      amended, as well as Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen            p. 49) in so far as it provides for a financial adjustment to
      (Decree on driving licences) of 28 May 1996, as amended by              made to the expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain as


title: Case C-91/01: Action brought on 21 February 2001 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/18                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Brescia, by orders of that court of 20 January 2001, in
the cases of (1) Agricola Torriani Sas; (2) Finanziaria
                                                                             —     annul Commission decision C(2000) 3565 final of
Immobiliare Perugino SpA and (3) San Marco SpA v
                                                                                15 November 2000 relating to State aid which Italy
                     Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                                intends to grant to Solar Tech Srl, insofar as it has failed
                                                                                to apply 15 % GSE (1), provided for small and medium-
             (Cases C-88/01, C-89/01 and C-90/01)                                  sized enterprises (SMEs), to the aid granted, and order the
                                                                                Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 118/28)
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities by orders of 20 anuary 2001, received
at the Court Registry on 21 February 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of (1) Agricola Torriani Sas; (2) Finanziaria            The Italian Government submits that, by basing the decision
Immobiliare Perugino SpA and (3) San Marco SpA v Ministero                   not to recognise the increment provided for on a definition of
delle Finanze on the following questions:                                    SMEs which fails to take account exclusively of the require-
                                                                             ments mentioned in the rules for aid to SMEs, the Commission
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December                  infringed those rules, which the Court has held to be binding.
      1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
      supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
                                                                             The Italian Government further submits that the contested
      lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
                                                                             application of the rules contained in the decision at issue is
      69/335/EEC (1), inasmuch as it provides that the adminis-
      trative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for regis-             also contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and
                                                                             legal certainty.
      tration of ‘other company documents’ for each of the
      years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
      sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
      partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for                     (1) GSE = maximum concession in gross subsidy equivalent granted
      private limited companies?                                                 according to the size of the undertaking and location of the
                                                                                production unit.
2.    Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with
      Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on
      the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
      sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
      according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
      that Law entered into force (2.5% per annum) and not
      according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
      respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
      subsequently amended?
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                             richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 29 January
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning                  2001 in appeal proceedings brought by (1) Gottfried
    indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition                     Linhart and (2) Dr Hans Biffl
    1969 (11), p. 412).
                                                                                (Case C-99/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/30)
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 21 February 2001 by the Italian                            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                         hof (Supreme Administrative Court), received at the Court
                               munities                                      Registry on 28 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             appeal proceedings brought by (1) Gottfried Linhart and (2)
                                                                             Dr Hans Biffl, on the following questions:
                           (Case C-91/01)
                                                                             (1) Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC
                          (2001/C 118/29)                                          of 27 July 1976 (1) on the approximation of the laws of
                                                                                the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          amended by Council Directives 88/667/EEC of
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       21 December 1988 (2) (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46) and
Communities on 21 February 2001 by the Italian Republic,                           Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (3) (OJ
represented by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato.                             1993 L 151, p. 32) (hereinafter ‘Directive 76/768’), in


title: Case C-460/12: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — SKP k.s. v Ján Bríla

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/33

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — SKP k.s. v Ján Bríla
   (Case C-460/12) (1)

   2014/C 175/42
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16. 2. 2013.


title: Case C-10/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2013 — Csilla Sajtos v Budapest Főváros VI Ker. Önkormányzata

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2013 — Csilla Sajtos v Budapest Főváros VI Ker. Önkormányzata
   (Case C-10/13)
   2013/C 147/02
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Csilla Sajtos

      Defendant: Budapest Főváros VI Ker. Önkormányzata

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to Article 6(3) of the [Treaty on European Union], does the right to protection against unjustified dismissal constitute a fundamental right which, as a general principle, forms part of European Union law and is to be regarded as a rule of primary law?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are civil servants also entitled to that right?


title: Case C-390/09: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 11 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni, Sky Italia Srl

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/26

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 11 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni, Sky Italia Srl
   (Case C-390/09) (1)

   2011/C 252/51
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-154/99 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 1999, by Corrado Politi against the order made on 9 February 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-124/98 between Corrado Politi and the European Training Foundation

text:
28.8.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 246/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance as
                                                                        In basing its findings on incorrect premisses, namely, an
regards a misuse of powers and infringement of Article 176 of
                                                                        erroneous characterisation of certain facts, the Court of First
the EC Treaty (now Article 233 EC): the Commission maintains
                                                                        Instance reached a conclusion which unlawfully reduced the
that the mere fact that it decided — in consequence of the
                                                                        time-limit for submitting a complaint and prejudiced the rights
initial annulment of the appointment of Mr X — to withdraw
                                                                        of the defence. The Court of First Instance wrongly treated as
the vacancy notice and to replace it with another one cannot
                                                                        a complaint, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff
in itself be construed, under any circumstances, as tantamount
                                                                        Regulations, a letter from the appellant’s lawyer which clearly
to a misuse of powers without disregarding Article 176 of the
                                                                        shows that the appellant had not yet taken the decision to
EC Treaty itself and the separation of powers which must of
                                                                        submit a complaint.
necessity exist between the executive and the Community
judicature. The wide discretion enjoyed by the appointing
authority in defining the conditions governing access to a post
in accordance with the needs of the service cannot be called in
question, even where the recruitment procedure has been
partially annulled by a judgment of the Community judicature.
In order for it to be able to state that the new vacancy notice
was worded in an arbitrary or even wrongful manner, the
Court of First Instance should first have established the
irrelevance of the qualifications to which particular importance
was attached in the new vacancy notice as publicised.                   Action brought on 20 April 1999 by the European
                                                                        Parliament against Société d’aménagement et d’équipe-
                                                                        ment de la région de Strasbourg (Development and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 19.                                        installation company for the region of Strasbourg —
                                                                                S.E.R.S.) and the City of Strasbourg
                                                                                (Case C-167/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/18)
Appeal brought on 26 April 1999, by Corrado Politi
against the order made on 9 February 1999 by the Second                 An action against Société d’aménagement et d’équipement de
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  la région de Strasbourg (S.E.R.S.) and the City of Strasbourg
Communities in Case T-124/98 between Corrado Politi                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             and the European Training Foundation                       Communities on 20 April 1999 by the European Parliament,
                                                                        represented by Timothy Millet, Head of Division in its Legal
                         (Case C-154/99 P)                              Service, and Olivier Caisou-Rousseau, also of that service,
                                                                        acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Mail and
                          (1999/C 246/17)                               Registration Service, Bâtiment Tour, Office 017.
An appeal against the order made on 9 February 1999 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
Communities in Case T-124/98 between Corrado Politi and
the European Training Foundation was brought before the                 1. order S.E.R.S. to pay penalties for fate completion from 9
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April                    January 1998, the contractual date for completion of the
1999 by Corrado Politi, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,                     IPE IV building, until 14 December 1998 inclusive, the day
Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-                before that building was declared to be completed, or, in
sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  the alternative, order S.E.R.S. to pay penalties for fate
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                       completion from such contractual date for completion as
                                                                            the Court may decide;
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        2. declare the delays after 9 January 1998, the contractual
     declare and rule that:                                                 date for completion of the IPE IV building, unjustified, and,
                                                                            accordingly, declare that the European Parliament is not
     — the order of the Court of First Instance of the European             liable to interim interest from that contractual date for
          Communities (Second Chamber) of 9 February 1999                   completion of the IPE IV building until 14 December 1998
          in Case T-124/99 Corrado Politi v European Training               inclusive, or, in the alternative, declare that the European
          Foundation is to be set aside;                                    Parliament is not liable to interim interest from such
                                                                            contractual date for completion as the Court may decide;
     — the case is to be referred back to the Court of First
          Instance for adjudication on the pleas advanced by the
          appellant in the substantive proceedings;                     3. annul the opinion of the College of conciliators;
     make the appropriate ruling as to costs.                           4. order the defendants to pay the costs.