title: Case C-236/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Sophie Jeanjean v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Sophie Jeanjean v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)
   (Case C-236/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/29
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophie Jeanjean

      Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

      (2)  Judgment of 10 December 2009 in Case C-323/08 Rodríguez Mayor and Others


title: Case C-613/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 30 December 2010 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 30 December 2010 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma
   (Case C-613/10)
   2011/C 80/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Parma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

      Question referred

   Is there a conflict between, on the one hand, Articles 19(5) and 19a of Presidential Decree No 633/72 and, on the other hand, Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, and the documents COM(2001) 260 final of 23.05.2001 and COM(2000) 348 final of 07.06.2000, and is there also unequal treatment of the VAT rules at Community level and consequently a need of harmonisation with the other European systems, given that various Member States apply, subject to certain conditions, a system of taxation at a lower rate?


title: Case F-113/12: Action brought on 9 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/71

         Action brought on 9 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-113/12)
   2013/C 26/144
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to include the Applicant on the reserve list of the EPSO/AD/204/10 competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the decision of 20 January 2012 not to include the Applicant on the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/204/10;

               —

               to annul the decision of 6 July 2012 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint;

               —

               to order to the Defendant to bear the entire costs.


title: Case C-487/09: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Inmogolf SA v Dirección General de Tributos de la Consejería de Economia y Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Murcia (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes — Raising of capital — Transfer of securities — Capital of a company mostly made up of immovable property)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/8

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Inmogolf SA v Dirección General de Tributos de la Consejería de Economia y Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Murcia
   (Case C-487/09) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Transfer of securities - Capital of a company mostly made up of immovable property)
   2011/C 80/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inmogolf SA

      Defendant: Dirección General de Tributos de la Consejería de Economía y Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Murcia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 11(a) and 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Prohibition on the taxation of the creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or dealing in securities — Derogation — Tax on the transfer of securities — National tax on the transfer of shares in a company in which at least 50 % of the assets comprise immovable property and, where as a result of the transfer, the person acquiring the securities obtains control of the company

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, and, more particularly, Articles 11(a) and 12(1)(a) thereof, does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as provided in Article 108(2) of Law 24/1988 of 28 July 1988 on stock markets, as amended by Law 18/91 of 6 June 1991, which, in order to prevent tax avoidance in the context of the transfer of immovable assets by companies, subjects transfers of securities to tax on capital transfers where those transfers of shares represent shares in the share capital of companies the assets of which are at least 50 % comprised of immovable property and where the purchaser has following such a transfer a position which allows it to exercise control over the entity at issue, even in cases where, firstly, there was no intention to evade tax and where, secondly, those companies are fully operational and the immovable properties cannot be dissociated from the economic activity carried out by those companies.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-556/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2014 by Victor Navarro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13 Navarro v Commission

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/16

         Appeal brought on 28 July 2014 by Victor Navarro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13 Navarro v Commission

   (Case T-556/14 P)
   2014/C 351/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Victor Navarro (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13;

               —

               Consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly:

                           —

                           Annul the decision of the European Commission, as the authority empowered to conclude contracts, of 4 October 2012, not to recruit the appellant as an auxiliary member of the contractual staff in function group II;

                           —

                           In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of 7 February 2013 rejecting the claim brought by the appellant on 19 October 2012;

                           —

                           Compensate his material losses;

                           —

                           Award him the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at EUR 50  000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

                           —

                           Order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the limits of the judicial review of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) since it substituted its own assessment for that of the administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST considered wrongly that, under Article 3(2) of Annex IV to the General Implementing Provisions of 2 March 2011 (1), professional experience must be properly circumstantiated and be related to one of the Commission’s areas of activity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts of the case, since the CST stated, in the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had not supplied a description of the tasks carried out for Continental Airlines Inc. and, accordingly, had not proved that his experience was ‘appropriate’ to the carrying out of secretarial duties.

      (1)  General Provisions of 2 March 2011 for implementing Article 79(2) of the CEOS, governing the conditions of employment of contract staff employed by the Commission under the terms of Articles 3a and 3b of the said Conditions, published in Administrative Notices No 33-2011.


title: Case C-235/07: Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/17

         Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-235/07)
   (2007/C 140/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Braun and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2004/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC (2) on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC (3) on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) into national law, or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period laid down for implementing the directive expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44

      (2)  OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70

      (3)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 February 1998 in Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Claims which are manifestly inadmissible or wholly unfounded in law)

text:
C 137/14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.5.98
1. dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 February 1998
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             (Officials Ð Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations Ð
                                                                     Claims which are manifestly inadmissible or wholly
                                                                                unfounded in law)
                                                                                (98/C 137/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     In Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou, an official of
                      of 19 March 1998                               the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
in Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal v. Commission of
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
               the European Communities (1)
                                                                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
(Access to information Ð Commission Decision 94/90/                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ECSC/EC/Euratom Ð Refusal of access Ð Scope of the                   Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) Ð application, first,
exception relating to the protection of the public interest          for annulment of the decision of the Commission of
Ð Court proceedings Ð European Convention on Human                   8 January 1996 classifying the applicant in grade A 7,
                       Rights, Article 6)                            step 5, and implicitly refusing to classify her in grade A 6,
                                                                     second, for annulment of the decision of 28 August 1996
                        (98/C 137/29)                                rejecting a complaint against that decision and, third, for
                                                                     compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                         composed of A. Saggio, President, and B. Vesterdorf and J.
                                                                     Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     13 February 1998, the operative part of which is as
In Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal, residing in                     follows:
Kraainem, Belgium, represented initially by Caroline P.
Bleeker and Laura Y. J. M. Parret, of the Hague Bar and
                                                                     1. the action is dismissed;
the Brussels Bar respectively, and subsequently by Laura
Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, supported              2. the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra
and Johannes S. van den Oosterkamp), against                         (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Wouter Wils and Ulrich Wölker) Ð application for the
annulment of the Commission's Decision of 29 March
1996 refusing the applicant access to letters sent by the
Directorate-General for Competition to national courts in
the context of the notice on cooperation between national                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                    of 28 January 1998
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh              in Case T-172/97: Camar Srl v. Commission of the
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                               European Communities (1)
judgment on 19 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                                                                     Bananas Ð Application for the allocation of additional
                                                                     import licences Ð Action for a declaration of failure to
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     act Ð Action for damages Ð No need to adjudicate Ð
                                                                                Removal from the Register)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                                     (98/C 137/31)
    defendant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its                 In Case T-172/97: Camar Srl, having its registered office
    own costs.                                                       in Florence (Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ,
                                                                     assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Hubertus van Vliet, Paolo Ziotti and Alberto Dal


title: Case C-190/01 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2001 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG against the judgment delivered on 20 February 2001 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-112/98 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 212/11
Appeal brought on 2 May 2001 by Mannesmannröhren-                             the Charter has not yet been ratified, it creates no new
Werke AG against the judgment delivered on 20 February                        law but merely codifies unwritten general principles of
2001 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       Community law.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-112/98 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG
                                                                              The Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to
      and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              recognise that the principle of administrative effectiveness
                                                                              — in the present case the effective enforcement of
                        (Case C-190/01 P)                                     Article 81 EC — cannot justify the restriction of funda-
                                                                              mental Community rights from the point of view of effet
                                                                              utile. In the present case the Court of First Instance
                         (2001/C 212/18)                                      infringed the essential content of the fundamental right
                                                                              nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare. The restriction is moreover
                                                                              disproportionate, since it was possible for the investi-
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 February                       gation to be concluded favourably from the Commission’s
2001 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       point of view in another way, and the Commission has
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                        in the meantime taken a decision in the case and imposed
Case T-112/98 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and                           fines on the undertakings concerned, including the appli-
Commission of the European Communities was brought                            cant.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 May 2001 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, represented                          The Court of First Instance further erred in law by
by Dr Martin Klusmann and Dr Frederik Wiemer, Rechtsanwäl-                    assuming that it is only an admission which may not be
te, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Düsseldorf.                            required, and that an accused must, however, provide
                                                                              evidence other than an admission, in particular documen-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   tary evidence, against himself. However, ‘admission’ and
                                                                              ‘documentary evidence’ are qualitatively evidence of equal
1.    Set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First                    value, either of which may on its own prove participation
      Instance of the European Communities of 20 February                     in an infringement.
      2001 in Case T-112/98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG
      v Commission of the European Communities (1) in so far                  The Court of First Instance erred in law, finally, in
      as it dismissed the action by Mannesmannröhren-Werke                    considering that the recognition of a fundamental right
      AG against Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May                     may be made to depend on all Member States generally
      1998 relating to a procedure under Article 81 EC;                       recognising such a right in their national legal systems.
                                                                              Since all EU Member States are in any case also Con-
2.    Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of                    tracting States to the European Convention on Human
      15 May 1998 relating to a procedure under Article 81                    Rights, they must correspond to the level of protection
      EC in its entirety; in the alternative, in accordance with              of the Convention, as implemented by the Funke line of
      Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court: Refer the case               case-law;
      back to the Court of First Instance of the European
      Communities to give judgment in accordance with the               —     Breach of the legal principles of definiteness and legal
      view of the law taken by the Court of Justice;                          certainty: The dividing line to be drawn, on the basis
                                                                              of the judgment at first instance, between an answer
3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the entire                     constituting an admission, which is not due, and a factual
      proceedings.                                                            answer, which is due, is unconvincing and cannot be
                                                                              made with precision;
                                                                        —     Breach of Article 6(2) EU;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     Breach of Article 6(1) EU;
—     Breach of the legal principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare:     —     Disregard of the guarantees of national law for natural
      The Court of First Instance wrongly relied essentially on               persons;
      the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 October 1989
      in Case C-374/87 Orkem v Commission. It has since                 —     Incorrect presentation of the applicant’s submissions.
      become settled case-law of the European Court of Human
      Rights (2) that Article 6 of the European Convention on
      Human Rights impliedly contains the fundamental right
      nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare. Similarly, the Court of First     (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, p. 21, not yet published in the ECR.
      Instance disregarded the principles of Community law              (2) Judgment of 25.2.1993 Funke v France; judgment of 17.12.1996
      expressed in the second paragraph of Article 47 and                   Saunders v the United Kingdom.
      Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
      European Union, the level of protection of which, under
      Article 52(3) of the Charter, may not fall short of that
      under the European Convention on Human Rights; while


title: Case C-19/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Efir OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Efir OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv
   (Case C-19/12)
   2012/C 89/22
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Efir OOD

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

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 62(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a chargeable event relates to both taxable and exempt transactions?

               2.

               Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: Is a national provision such as that applicable in the main proceedings, under which a chargeable event also occurs at the time of an exempt transaction, permissible?

               3.

               Do Articles 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-713/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/17

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)
   (Case T-713/13)
   2014/C 61/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: 9Flats GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Stoffregen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tibesoca, SL (Valencia, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2013 in Case R 1671/2012-2;

               —

               annul the decision of OHIM’s Opposition Division of 13 July 2012 in opposition proceedings No B 1 898 686;

               —

               reject the opposition to registration of the mark ‘9flats.com’ — Community trade mark application No 9 832 635

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: 9Flats GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘9flats.com’ for services in Classes 36, 38, 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 832 635

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tibesoca, SL

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark which includes the number and word elements ‘40 flats apartments’ for services in Class 43, Spanish figurative mark which includes the number and word elements ‘11 flats apartments’ for services in Class 43, and Spanish figurative mark which includes the numbers and the word element ‘50 flats’ for services in Class 43

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-493/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2014  — Sanofi v OHIM — GP Pharm (GEPRAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark GEPRAL — Earlier international word mark DELPRAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2014 — Sanofi v OHIM — GP Pharm (GEPRAL)
   (Case T-493/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark GEPRAL - Earlier international word mark DELPRAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 388/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanofi SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: GP Pharm SA (Sant Quinti de Mediona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2012 (Case R 201/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi SA and GP Pharm SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2012 (Case R 201/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi SA and GP Pharm SA;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-112/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2008 — Inter-Ikea OHIM — Waibel (idea) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark idea — Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks IKEA — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2008 — Inter-Ikea OHIM — Waibel (idea)
   (Case T-112/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark ‘idea’ - Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks ‘IKEA’ - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 51/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Inter-Ikea Systems BV, (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olsson, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance: Walter Waibel (Dingolfing, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2006 (Case R 80/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter Ikea Systems BV and Walter Waibel.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Inter-Ikea Systems BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by Walter Waibel in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-689/14 P: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2014  — ENISA v Psarras

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/31

         Order of the General Court of 3 December 2014 — ENISA v Psarras
   (Case T-689/14 P) (1)

   (2015/C 056/45)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Appeal Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-174/11: Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Modelo Continente Hipermercados v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/28

         Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Modelo Continente Hipermercados v Commission
   (Case T-174/11)
   2011/C 139/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Modelo Continente Hipermercados, SA (Alcorcón, Spain) (represented by: J.Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan, R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Admit and uphold the pleas in support of annulment put forward in this application and accordingly annul Article 1(1) [of the contested decision], in so far as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (‘TRLIS’) (Consolidated version of the Law on Corporation Tax) contains elements of State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS contains elements of State aid when it applies to acquisitions of shareholdings entailing acquisition of control;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision on account of a procedural irregularity;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the Commission’s Decision of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions (C 45/07, ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in finding the measure to constitute State aid

                           —

                           The Commission has not shown that the tax measure at issue favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. The Commission merely assumes that the measure is selective because it applies only to the acquisition of shareholdings in foreign companies and not in domestic companies. The applicant submits that such reasoning is erroneous and circular. The fact that the application of the measure examined (as for any other tax rule) depends on the fulfilment of certain objective requirements does not render it, in law or in fact, a selective measure. The Commission’s reasoning would result in every tax rule being considered to be prima facie selective.

                           —

                           In the second place, the prima facie different treatment under Article 12(5) TRLIS, far from constituting a selective advantage, serves to place all transactions for the acquisitions of shares on an equal tax footing, whether they be national or foreign: owing to the impossibility of cross-border mergers, the amortisation of goodwill can be effected only in the national sphere, and therefore the tax system includes rules which allow that. In that regard, Article 12(5) TRLIS does no more than extend such a possibility to the purchase of assets in foreign companies, a transaction which represents the closest functional equivalent to domestic mergers and is thus integral to the scheme and broad logic of the Spanish system.

                           —

                           In the alternative, the Commission’s decision is disproportionate given that its application to cases in which control of foreign companies is taken should at least be equivalent to cases of domestic mergers and therefore justified by the scheme and broad logic of the Spanish system.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity since the procedure applicable to existing aid was not complied with

                           —

                           The contested decision rejects the arguments concerning the fact that the measure plays an equivalent role, since it does not accept that intra-EU cross-border mergers are in practice impossible. In the Commission’s view, the subsequent adoption of EU Directives in this sphere, all of them later than the entry into force of the measure at issue, removed all barriers or obstacles which may have existed. The applicant submits in that regard that, if the Commission’s argument were accepted and if the EU Directives had actually removed the obstacles to cross-border mergers, which is not the case, there would in any event be existing aid. The procedure for reviewing existing aid differs significantly from the procedure followed in this case and thus a fundamental procedural irregularity has been committed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU resulting from an error of law in determining the beneficiary of the measure

                           —

                           Even if the view is taken that Article 12(5) TRLIS contains elements of State aid, the Commission should have carried out a comprehensive economic analysis in order to determine who the beneficiaries of any possible aid were. The applicant submits that, in any event, the beneficiaries of the aid (in the form of an inflated purchase price for the shares) are those selling the shares and not, as the Commission alleges, Spanish firms which have applied that measure.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-287/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-287/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/104/EC - Organisation of working time - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 182/32)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-287/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström van Lier and N. Yerrell) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 July 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3, 6 and 8 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11. 09. 2004


2.8.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 184/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-369/02 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-449/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/70)                                                    (2003/C 184/72)
By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-369/02: Commission of the European               register of Case C-449/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                         (1) OJ C 31 of 08.02.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-7/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/71)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/73)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-440/02: Commission of the European               of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v Italian Republic.                                     register of Case C-7/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                    the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Divi-
                                                                    sion): Société de produits Nestlé SA v Unilever plc.
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case T-333/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark star foods — Earlier Community word and figurative marks STAR SNACKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)
   (Case T-333/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark star foods - Earlier Community word and figurative marks STAR SNACKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 366/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Wessang (Zimmerbach, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Greinwald GmbH (Kempten, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to goods falling within Classes 29, 30 and, with the exception of ‘beers’, within Class 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and three-quarters of the costs of Mr Nicolas Wessang;

               4.

               Orders Mr Wessang to bear one-quarter of his own costs;

               5.

               Orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case F-104/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Valero Jordana v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2004 promotion exercise — Award of priority points — Temporal application of provisions of the new Staff Regulations)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Valero Jordana v Commission
   (Case F-104/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2004 promotion exercise - Award of priority points - Temporal application of provisions of the new Staff Regulations)
   (2008/C 116/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola and I. van Schendel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, assisted by D. Slater, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision awarding priority points to the applicant under the 2004 promotion exercise and of the decision not to promote him to Grade A*12 under that exercise
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision setting Mr Valero Jordana's total number of points at the end of the 2004 promotion exercise and the decision not to promote him under that exercise;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 27 (Case initially registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under T-394/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 8 May 1996 in the case of Richard Buchen GmbH v. Bezirksregierung Köln (Case C-193/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 210/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-174/94 ( 1 )
Verwaltungsgericht Kôln by order of that court of 8 May                                             ( 96/C 210/26 )
1996     in   the     case     of  Richard   Buchen        GmbH     v.
                       Bezirksregierung Köln
                           ( Case C-193/96 )                            By order of 19 March 1 996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 96/C 210/25 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-l 74/94 : French Republic v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                        United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Chamber
of the Verwaltungsgericht Kôln ( Administrative Court,
Cologne ) of 8 May 1996 , which was received at the Court               ( i ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
Registry on 6 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Richard Buchen GmbH v . Bezirksregierung Kôln on the
following questions :
1 . Do shipments of waste destined for recovery, within
     Annex III to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
     1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
     shipments of waste within, into and out of the European                    Removal from the register of Case C-99/95 (')
     Community ( 1 ), require the express or tacit consent of
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/27)
     the competent authority of dispatch, in accordance with
     Chapter B of the Regulation ?
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : if that         By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     authority raises objections, does it thereby at the same          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     time refuse consent or defer a decision ?                          from the register of Case C-99/95 : ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ):
3 . If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative :           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v . Forbo-Krommenie BV.
     where the competent authority of destination has raised
     no objections or has consented to the shipment, may
                                                                        (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
     the waste be shipped after the period specified in
     Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 has passed,
     notwithstanding the objections raised by the competent
     authority of dispatch, if a legal remedy brought against
     the objections has suspensive effect under national
     law ?
4 . May the shipment of the waste referred to in Question 1
     be effected, despite the objections raised by the                         Removal from the register of Case C-3 50/95 (')
     competent authority of dispatch, if the competent                                              ( 96/C 210/28 )
     authority of destination has stamped the consignment
     note , even if the basis of the objections is that the waste
    will not be recovered but disposed of ( objection under             By order of 15 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     the first or fifth indent of Article 7 ( 4 ) ( a ) of Regulation  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     ( EEC ) No 259/93 )?                                               from the register of Case C-350/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
(') OJ No L 30 , 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case C-390/05: Action brought on  27 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/11

         Action brought on 27 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-390/05)
   (2005/C 330/21)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker, legal adviser and M. Konstantinidis, of the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5), (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

               2.

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant considers that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer because it did not take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer.
   The applicant likewise considers that the Hellenic Republic infringed its obligations under Article 16(6) of Regulation No 2037/2000 given that the Hellenic Republic did not submit a report to the Commission in accordance with the requirements of that provision, concerning the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed.
   Finally, the applicant alleges an infringement by the Hellenic Republic of Article 17(1) of the abovementioned regulation because it did not adopt, as provided for thereunder, all practicable measures to arrange for annual checks of leakages from fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg.

      (1)  OJ L 244 of 29.09.2000, p. 1


title: Case T-626/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a blue sphere)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/29

         Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a blue sphere)
   (Case T-626/14)
   2014/C 351/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

      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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2014 given in Case R 169/2014-5.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of a blue sphere for goods in classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37  483

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-352/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo Regionale per l’Abruzzo (Italy) lodged on 25 July 2012 — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo, Comune di Barisciano

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo Regionale per l’Abruzzo (Italy) lodged on 25 July 2012 — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo, Comune di Barisciano
   (Case C-352/12)
   2012/C 295/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo Regionale per l’Abruzzo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

      Defendants: Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo, Comune di Barisciano

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 of that directive and Categories 8 and 12 in Annex [II] thereto, preclude national legislation which permits written agreements to be entered into between two contracting authorities for the provision of support to municipalities relating to the study, analysis and planning of the reconstruction of the historical centres of the municipalities of Barisciano and Castelvecchio Subequo, as described in greater detail in the technical specifications annexed to the agreement and defined by the national and regional legislation for the sector, for consideration which is not, prima facie, of a non-remunerative nature, where the authority responsible for carrying out this task may act as an economic operator?

               2.

               In particular, does Directive [2004/18/EC] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 of that directive and Categories 8 and 12 in Annex [II] thereto, preclude national legislation which permits written agreements to be entered into between two contracting authorities for the provision of support to municipalities relating to the study, analysis and planning of the reconstruction of the historical centres of the municipalities of Barisciano and Castelvecchio Subequo, as described in greater detail in the technical specifications annexed to the agreement and defined by the national and regional legislation for the sector, for consideration which is not, prima facie, of a non-remunerative nature, where specific justification for the award of contracts under a privately negotiated procedure is to be found in post-emergency primary and secondary legislation, taking into account defined, specific public interests?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-246/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) of 21 May 2014 — Vittoria De Bellis and Others v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) of 21 May 2014 — Vittoria De Bellis and Others v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)
   (Case C-246/14)
   2014/C 421/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale Per la Regione Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani

      Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)
   By order of 15 October 2014, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.


title: Case C-43/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) — National rules concerning inheritance duties and transfer duties which do not provide for the deduction, in the assessment of those duties, of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was not residing, at the time of death, in the Member State in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated — Restriction — Justification — None — No bilateral agreement for the prevention of double taxation — Consequences for the restriction of the free movement of capital of a lower level of compensation to prevent double taxation in that person's Member State of residence)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-43/07) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) - National rules concerning inheritance duties and transfer duties which do not provide for the deduction, in the assessment of those duties, of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was not residing, at the time of death, in the Member State in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated - Restriction - Justification - None - No bilateral agreement for the prevention of double taxation - Consequences for the restriction of the free movement of capital of a lower level of compensation to prevent double taxation in that person's Member State of residence)
   (2008/C 285/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — National rules on the calculation of inheritance duty payable on immovable property which do not allow for deduction, from the value of immovable property, of debts associated with the testamentary partition in the case where the testator was resident in another Member State at the time of his death — Method of comparison applicable for the purpose of determining the amount of inheritance duty in the case where the testator was resident, at the time of his death, in the Member State in which the immovable property is situated — Bilateral convention designed to prevent double taxation
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 73b and 73d of the Treaty (subsequently, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance duties and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which, for the assessment of those duties, makes no provision for the deductibility of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was residing, at the time of death, in the first-mentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated, in so far as such rules apply a progressive rate of taxation and in so far as the combination of (i) the failure to take into account such debts and (ii) that progressive rate could result in a greater tax burden for heirs who are not in a position to rely on such deductibility.

               2.

               The answer set out in point 1 of the operative part of this judgment is not affected by the fact that the rules of the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death provide unilaterally for the possibility that a tax credit may be granted in respect of inheritance duties payable in another Member State on immovable property situated in that other State.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-412/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen
   (Case C-412/08)
   (2008/C 313/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swiss Caps AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is heading 1517 of the Combined Nomenclature (Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 — Combined Nomenclature (CN)) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the addition of 10 mg of lecithin, 18,8 mg of vitamin E, 8,2 mg of wax, 8 mg of calcium pantothenate, 0,2 mg of folic acid and 0,11 mg of biotin to a mixture consisting of 500 mg of cold-pressed black cumin oil (62,5 % or 83,3 %), 38,7 mg of soya oil and 16 mg of butterfat is to be regarded as so small that it does not affect the classification of such a preparation under that heading?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Is Rule 5 of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that capsule casings containing the substances specified above are to be regarded as packing material?

               3.

               If the reply to the second question is in the negative:
               Is heading 1517 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that a capsule casing consisting of 313,97 mg of gelatin mass (47,3 % gelatin, 17,2 % glycerine, 35,5 % water), 4,30 mg of paste consisting of 50 % titanium dioxide and 50 % glycerine, and 1,73 mg of paste consisting of 25 % quinoline yellow lacquer and 75 % glycerine leads to the exclusion of the capsules described above from that heading?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.


title: Case T-68/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014  — Hemmati v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Prohibition on entry or on transit — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Hemmati v Council
   (Case T-68/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Prohibition on entry or on transit - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 235/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abdolnaser Hemmati (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as it included the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as it included the applicant’s name in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and, secondly, of Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413, in so far as those provisions concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, and as being inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

               2.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413, in so far as it included Mr Abdolnaser Hemmati’s name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as it included Mr Hemmati’s name in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of Mr Hemmati’s costs;

               4.

               Orders Mr Hemmati to bear one fifth of his own costs and to pay one fifth of the Council’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-397/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2007 — Dow AgroSciences v EFSA (Applications for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Directive 91/414/CEE — European Food Safety Authority — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/43

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2007 — Dow AgroSciences v EFSA
   (Case T-397/06 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Directive 91/414/CEE - European Food Safety Authority - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 95/88)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, Agents,)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 28 July 2006, updated on 6 October 2006, concerning the evaluation of the active substance haloxyfop-R for the purposes of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant-protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for the grant of other interim measures
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Rejects the application for interim measures;

               2.

               Reserves the costs.


title: Case T-36/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Japan Airlines v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Japan Airlines v Commission
   (Case T-36/11)
   2011/C 80/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 9 November 2010;

               —

               in the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, to reduce the fine imposed on the applicant and AL and Japan Airlines Corporation; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 Final of 9 November 2010 in case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight. This Decision finds that the applicant, along with Japan Airlines Corporation (JAC) (which has been absorbed by the applicant and ceased to exist), infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by coordinating with other carriers its pricing behaviour for air freight services in respect (i) fuel surcharges, (ii) security surcharges, and (iii) the non-payment of commissions on surcharges.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eights pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in defining the scope of the infringement in which the applicant was found to have participated to include routes that the applicant did not serve and had no legal right to serve.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in asserting jurisdiction over inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes to the extent that such services are sold to customers located outside of the EEA.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality in applying different standards of proof to different carriers.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the principle of proportionality by including in the relevant value of sales used as the basis for calculating the fine revenues derived from elements of price for airfreight services unrelated to the infringement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the principle of legitimate expectations by including in the relevant value of sales used as the basis for calculating the fine revenues derived from airfreight services on inbound routes between EEA States and third countries.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the principle of proportionality in limiting the reduction in the fine granted to the applicant on account of the regulatory framework to 15 %.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the principle of non-discrimination in failing to grant the applicant a 10 % reduction in the fine on account of limited involvement in the infringement where such a reduction was granted to other addressees of the decision that are in a position objectively similar to that of the applicant.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the principle of proportionality in failing to take account of the specific circumstances of the case.


13 . 4 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 108/ 13
      Removal from the register of Case T-444/93 ( )                       Removal from the register of Case T-107/95 ( )
                          ( 96/C 108/27                                                        ( 96/C 108 /30 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-444/93 : Stichting               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers- en                     Case T-l 07/95 : Benjamin Laurence Lay v . Council of
Schoonmaakbedrijf ( Fondation Bedrijfspensioenfonds du               the European Union and Commission of the European
Secteur des Entreprises de Lavage de Vitres et de Nettoyage )        Communities .
v . Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities .                                               (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
      Removal from the register of Case T-355/94 ( 1 )                     Removal from the register of Case T-l 08/95 (')
                          ( 96/C 108/28 )                                                      ( 96/C 108 /31 )
              (Language of the case: English)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 16 February 1 996 the President of the Third             By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-355/94 : Norsk Hydro A/S v .
                                                                     T-l 08/95 : Donald George Gage and David John Gage v.
Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-83/95 ( ] )
                          ( 96/C 108/29 )
               (Language of the case: English)                             Removal from the register of Case T-182/95 (')
                                                                                96/C 108/32 )
By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Fifth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                             (Language of the case: French)
from the register of Case T-83/95 : Associaçâo dos
Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ), Alcantara                By order of 7 February 1996 the President of the Second
Refiniarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reunidas SA v . Commission of the European                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Communities .
                                                                     T- 1 82/95 : Champing Qualité France v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .


title: Case C-404/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Lagardère SCA (Appeals — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to merger control proceedings — Regulations (EEC) No 4064/89 and (EC) No 139/2004 — Refusal to grant access — Exceptions relating to the protection of investigations, commercial interests, legal advice and the decision-making process of the institutions — Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Lagardère SCA
   (Case C-404/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to merger control proceedings - Regulations (EEC) No 4064/89 and (EC) No 139/2004 - Refusal to grant access - Exceptions relating to the protection of investigations, commercial interests, legal advice and the decision-making process of the institutions - Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access)
   2012/C 258/04
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, O. Beynet and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: J. Gstalter, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, avocats)

      Interveners in support of Éditions Odile Jacob SAS: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: S. Juul Jørgensen and C. Vang, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2010, Éditions Jacob v Commission (T-237/05), annulling the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2005 (D(2005) 3286), to the extent that it refuses the appellant access to the documents concerning the merger control proceedings COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP — Documents relating to merger control procedures — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside paragraphs 2 to 6 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-237/05 Éditions Jacob v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of Commission Decision D(2005) 3286 of 7 April 2005, dismissing the application of Éditions Odile Jacob SAS for access to documents relating to merger control procedure COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;

               4.

               Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission and Lagardère both at first instance and on appeal;

               5.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


|

Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2010 in Case E-5/10 — Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung (Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)

Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0006 - 0006

		Judgment of the Courtof 17 December 2010in Case E-5/10Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung(Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)2011/C 148/06In Case E-5/10 between Dr Joachim Kottke and Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), Liechtenstein, concerning the interpretation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 17 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:1. A provision of national law pursuant to which non-resident plaintiffs in civil litigation must provide security for costs of court proceedings, while resident plaintiffs are not obliged to provide such security, entails indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 4 EEA.2. In order for such a discrimination to be justified on the basis of public interest objectives, the provision of national law must be necessary and not excessive in attaining them.3. The latter condition is not met in cases where the State in which the plaintiff is resident allows for the enforcement of a costs award, whether on the basis of treaty obligations or unilaterally.4. In other cases, too, provision of security may not be required in a manner disproportionately affecting the interests of a non-resident plaintiff in being able to commence legal proceedings. This means in particular that security may not be required for an amount which is out of proportion to the costs likely to be incurred by the defendant or unreasonably high or which must be posted within a very short period of time. The form of security required, the situation giving rise to its imposition and whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to legal aid also constitute important factors.5. It is for the national court to determine in a particular case whether the conditions for justification are satisfied.--------------------------------------------------


title: Case F-31/07 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2011 — Putterie v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2011 — Putterie v Commission
   (Case F-31/07 RENV) (1)

   2011/C 282/102
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 38.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2000 in Case T-177/97: Odette Simon v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Claim to entitlement to the status of a member of the temporary staff)

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 May 2000
                         of 21 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-177/97: Odette Simon v Commission of the
in Case T-429/93: successors of Edmond Ropars v Council                                       European Communities (1)
                   of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Claim to entitlement to the status of a member
                                                                                of the temporary staff)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
entered into an undertaking to convert — Transfer of a                                               (2000/C 285/13)
                              holding)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 285/12)
                                                                           In Case T-177/97: Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                           represented by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and F. Parmentier, of
                                                                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                   (Language of the case: French)                          the offices of the Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue
                                                                           Beck, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-429/93: Madeleine Amélie Le Goff, residing in                    G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
Plounevezel, France, Liliane Ropars, residing in Rouziers-de-              Commission’s decision rejecting the application made by the
Touraine, France, Jacqueline Ropars, residing in Gleize, France,           applicant for the regularisation of her administrative situation
Marie-Christine Ropars, residing in Guerlesquin, France, Gisèle            and for the award of one euro as token compensation for the
Ropars, residing in Morlaix, France, Madeleine Ropars, residing            non-material damage caused to the applicant — the Court of
in Glomel, France, Louise Ropars, residing in Saint Laurent-du-            First Instance (Single Judge), composed of: M. Vilaras, sitting as
Maroni, French Guiana, Joseph Ropars, residing in Laniscat,                a single judge; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
France, as successors of Edmond Ropars, represented by                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2000, in which it:
C. Larzul and F. Buffet, and subsequently by A. Delanoé, of the
Rennes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1.    Dismisses the application;
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch v Council of the
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Union (Agent: A.M. Colaert) — application for
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                   (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
Edmond Ropars as a result of his having been prevented
from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred                                   of 20 June 2000
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
L 132, p. 11) — the Court (Single Judge: R.M. Moura Ramos);                in Case T-597/97: Euromin SA v Council of the European
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                                        Union (1)
a judgment on 21 June 2000, in which it:
                                                                              (Action for annulment — Dumping — Inadmissibility)
1.    Refuses the application for a stay of proceedings;
                                                                                (2000/C 285/14)
2.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
3.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           In Case T-597/97: Euromin SA, established in Geneva, Switzer-
                                                                           land, represented initially by D. Horovitz, J. Bäverbrant,
(1) OJ C 217 of 20.8.91.
                                                                           G. Vandersanden and N. Stockwell, of the Brussels Bar, and
                                                                           by N. Robson, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Horovitz,
                                                                           G. Vandersanden, N. Stockwell, M.E. Pitt and S. Sheppard,
                                                                           Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the