title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 1999 in Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (Official — Period within which an action must be brought — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 1999 L 202, p. 1)
                                                                          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                        of 8 October 1999                                 order on 25 November 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
   in Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          1. Implementation of the measure of the European Parliament of
(Official — Period within which an action must be brought                     14 September 1999, by which the Parliament adopted the
                  — Manifest inadmissibility)                                 interpretation of Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure proposed by
                                                                              the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is suspended;
                          (2000/C 20/42)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, Körnerstrasse 5, 10785
Berlin, v European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for annulment of the decision of the
selection board in Competition PE/86/A refusing to admit the
applicant to the written tests in that competition and                    Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
requesting that the applicant be allowed to take part in that             PLC against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                                               ties
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras;
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                   (Case T-219/99)
1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (2000/C 20/44)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
                                                                          PLC, represented by William Wood QC and Helen Davies, of
                                                                          Brick Court Chambers, London, and William Allan and Oliver
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Black, of Linklaters, Solicitors, London, with an address for
                            INSTANCE                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                      of 25 November 1999
in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 Gaulle v European Parliament
                                                                          — annul the contested decision in its entirety;
(Application for the adoption of interim measures —
Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility
  — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 20/43)
                                                                          The primary relief sought is the annulment of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        mission’s Decision declaring that since 1992 the applicant
                                                                          (BA) has infringed Article 82 EC by operating systems of
In Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpel-            commission and other incentives with the travel agents from
lier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris, represent-       whom it purchases air travel agency services in the United
ed by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la                       Kingdom, systems which, by rewarding loyalty from the travel
Poissonnerie, Nice (France), v European Parliament (Agents:               agents and by discriminating between travel agents, have the
Gregorio Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and Hans Krück) —                 object and effect of excluding BA’s competitors from the UK
application for suspension of implementation of the decision              air transport market. Article 2 of the contested Decision
of the European Parliament dated 14 September 1999 con-                   imposed on BA a fine of £ 6,8 million for the alleged
cerning the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of                  infringements.


title: Case C-438/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania)) — SC BCR Leasing IFN SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de soluţionare a contestaţiilor (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 16 and 18 — Financial leasing — Goods under a financial leasing contract — Non-recovery of those goods by the leasing company after the termination of the contract — Missing goods)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/21

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania)) — SC BCR Leasing IFN SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de soluţionare a contestaţiilor
   (Case C-438/13) (1)

   ((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 16 and 18 - Financial leasing - Goods under a financial leasing contract - Non-recovery of those goods by the leasing company after the termination of the contract - Missing goods))
   2014/C 315/31
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC BCR Leasing IFN SA

      Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de soluţionare a contestaţiilor

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 16 and 18 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the impossibility, for a leasing company, of recovering from the lessee the goods let under a financial leasing contract following its termination as a result of the lessee’s breach, despite the steps undertaken by that company to recover those goods and despite the lack of any consideration following such termination, may not be treated as a supply of goods for consideration for the purposes of those articles.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2003 in Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for compensation)

text:
10.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 7/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and
                                                                          F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                       of 22 October 2003                                 against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                          D. Martin) — application, first, for annulment of the Com-
in Case T-311/01: Les Éditions Albert René v Office for                   mission’s decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s com-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     plaints seeking damages to compensate her for the non-
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                material damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the
                                                                          Staff Reports concerning her for the periods 1993/1995,
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —                          1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to
Earlier Community trade mark ASTERIX — Application for                    compensate her for that non-material damage — the Court of
a Community figurative mark containing the word ‘starix’                  First Instance (Single Judge: V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
— Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5)                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003,
                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                             in which it:
                          (2004/C 7/59)                                   1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 2 500, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already
                  (Language of the case: German)                                awarded by the Appointing Authority.
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.
In Case T-311/01, Les Éditions Albert René, established in
Paris (France), represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat, v Office for         3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneid-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
er), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Trucco sistemi di
telecomunicazione SpA, established in Milan (Italy), APPEAL
against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) of 2 October 2001 (Case R 1030/2000-1),
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 22 October 2003, in which it:                                                       of 23 October 2003
1.    Dismisses the action.                                               in Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.                                                                            compensation)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 23 October 2003
                                                                          In Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet, an official of the Commission
in Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Com-                          of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Lux-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                         embourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
(Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
                          compensation)                                   C. Berardis-Kayser) — application, first, for annulment of
                                                                          the Commission’s decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                          complaints seeking damages to compensate him for the non-
                          (2004/C 7/60)                                   material damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the
                                                                          staff reports concerning him for the periods 1993/1995,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to
                                                                          compensate him for that non-material damage — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (Single Judge: V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
In Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi, an official of                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002,
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   in which it:


title: Case T-475/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — FTI Touristik v EUIPO — Prantner and Giersch (Fl)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/22

         Action brought on 26 August 2016 — FTI Touristik v EUIPO — Prantner and Giersch (Fl)
   (Case T-475/16)
   (2016/C 383/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harald Prantner (Hamburg, Germany) and Daniel Giersch (Monaco, Monaco)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘Fl’ — Application No 12 201 273

      Proceedings before EUIPO: opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 in Case R 480/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2000 in Case T-509/93: Glencore Grain Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action for annulment)

text:
C 118/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          21.4.2001
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
                                                                                costs incurred by each of the applicants up until delivery of the
                                                                                judgments of the Court of Justice of 5 May 1998. Each
                                                                                applicant is to bear its own costs incurred following delivery of
                       of 8 November 2000                                       those judgments and the applicants are jointly and severally to
                                                                                pay the costs incurred by the Commission after that delivery.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 198 of 22.7.1993, C 231 of 27.8.1993 and C 209 of
in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98:                     4.7.1998.
Société Anonyme Louis Dreyfus & Cie v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
(Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of
the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
             for annulment — Action for damages)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 November 2000
                          (2001/C 118/93)                                 in Case T-509/93: Glencore Grain Ltd v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of
                                                                          the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
              (Languages of the case: French and Dutch)                                               for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/94)
In Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98:
Société Anonyme Louis Dreyfus & Cie, established in Paris                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
(France), represented by R. Saint-Esteben, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   In Case T-509/98: Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly trading as
A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly                    Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton (Bermuda),
Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton (Bermuda),                represented by M. Slotboom, P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van
represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van Zuuren, of the                   Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, Compagnie                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
Continentale (France), established at Labège (France), represent-         B.J. Drijber and N. Khan and subsequently M.-J. Jonczy and
ed by P. Chabrier, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service          H. van Vliet) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue                      decision of 12 July 1993 addressed to the State Export-Import
Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities                   Bank of Ukraine, refusing to approve the contract entered into
(Agents: initially M.-J. Jonczy, B.J. Drijber and N. Khan and             between the applicant and Ukrimpex — the Court of First
subsequently Ms Jonczy and H. van Vliet) — application, first,            Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,
for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993                A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,
relating to contracts concluded between each of the applicants            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and Exportkhleb and, second, for compensation for the                     8 November 2000, in which it:
damage allegedly suffered as a result of that decision — the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                    1.    Dismisses the action;
J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred up until
a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:                                     delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 May 1998
                                                                                and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred following
                                                                                delivery of that judgment.
1.    Joins Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98
      for the purposes of the judgment;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 282 of 20.10.1993.
2.    Dismisses the actions;


title: Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Crono Service Scarl and Others (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12) v Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire services — Purely internal situation — Jurisdiction of the Court — Conditions for admissibility)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Crono Service Scarl and Others (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12) v Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12)
   (Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12) (1)

   (Requests for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Car and driver hire services - Purely internal situation - Jurisdiction of the Court - Conditions for admissibility)
   2014/C 93/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Crono Service Scarl, Carla Silvestri, Nando Cese, Fabrizio Melaragno, Yahia Nafea, Robert Martin, Angelo Minosse, Raimondo Pratico’, Angelo Vincenti, Bruno Pesce, Francesco Fedeli, Roberto Sebastiani, Francesco Nanni, Vincenzo Savino, Andrea Rossi, Filiberto Marinelli, Liberato Puglia, Stefano Sordelli, Carlo Antonini, Andrea Iannilli, Pasquale Iavarone, Roberto Agostinelli, Valerio Giannoni, Fernando Boccadamo, Aristide Salvati, Annalisa Di Grigoli, Antonio Evangelisti, Marco Brecciaroli, Cardoso Wandenberg, Fabrizio Villamaina, Sandro Rossi, Fabrizio Di Somone, Debora Falasca, Elisabetta Serrano, Claudio Bandini, Bruno Piromallo, Maurizio Pesce, Mirko Capogrossi, Giovanni Barilotti, Stefano Petitti, Paolo Ricci, Vincenzo Curto, Luci Di Luzio, Gianfrancesco Argiro’, Magdi Gou Bial, Secondo Uffreduzzi, Fausto Menotti, Maurizio Montini, Danilo Valdambrini, Andrea Orfei, Daniele Silvestrini, Maurizio Borzi, Flavio Piromalli, Carlo Campanari, Volodymyr Lupu, Solution Car scarl, Paolo De Santis, Michele Rienzi, Roberta Rinaldi, Bps Autonoleggio scarl, Sebastiano Favara, Stefano Calabretta, Adriano Carducci, Giuseppa Gabriello, Modestino Capaccio, Mario Paruzza, Massimiliano Casu, Luciano Gulizia, Planet Service scarl, Fabio Belmonte, Fabrizio Romagnoli, Italo Ratta, Fabio Martella, Ilario Fiano, Coop Michelangelo, Michele Falcione, Roberto Natalizia, Claudio Botticelli, Odoardo Palombelli, Mario Rondeoni, Massimiliano Dionisi, Luigi Vitrano, Stefano Iovino, Merella Micheciivo, Daniele Latorre, Walter Luccaferri, Bruno Iannone, Mariannina Tesone, Alessandro Polidoro, Giorgio Scortichini, Fabio Atturi, Coop Leonardo, Coop Sia A Srl, Marco Lucaferri, Roberto Turchetti, Corrado Mortillaro, Gianrico Lanternari, Sandro Baronciani, Ugo Mecchia, Flavio Meroni, Giuseppina Berchicci, Enrico Poddi, Nicola Solipacca, Franco Perazzola, Agostino Di Sciullo, Sergio Angeletti, Patrizio Tesi, Fabio Carrozi, Tommaso Pagani, Marco Stivoli, Roberto Miglio, Professional Car Service Snc, Massimo Mongiovì, Roberto Corona (C-419/12) and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (C-420/12)

      Defendants: Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio (C-420/12)

      In the presence of: UGL Taxi — Unione Generale del Lavoro Taxi and Others, Codacons — Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (C-420/12)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 90 TFEU, of Article 3 TEU read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU and 6 TFEU, and of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Car and driver hire service — National legislation making the provision of that service conditional upon possession of an authorisation issued by the municipal authorities and requiring anyone holding such an authorisation to have the normal base for their vehicle(s) located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation and to have a registered office within that territory, and to begin and end the hire in that territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the requests from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling, made by decisions of 20 June 2012 in Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12, to the extent that those requests concern the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU. Those requests are inadmissible to the extent that they concern the interpretation of other provisions of EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case F-69/12: Action brought on 3 July 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/17

         Action brought on 3 July 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-69/12)
   2012/C 319/30
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N.D. Dane, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s claim and his complaint seeking payment of the sums agreed in the amicable out-of-court settlement entered into by the parties in the context of earlier proceedings before the Court.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implicit decision to reject the claim of 26 May 2011 and annul the implicit decision to reject the complaint of 9 December 2011 against the implicit decision rejecting the aforementioned claim;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-302/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/35/EC — Article 4(1) — Retention of title — Enforceability)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-302/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/35/EC - Article 4(1) - Retention of title - Enforceability)
   (2006/C 326/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Massella Ducci Teri, avocat)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Retention of title — National legislation providing that, in order to be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser, a retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date that is prior to any attachment procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.


title: Case T-471/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/35

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-471/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/57)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-142/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson, Joakim Roos (Directive 94/25/EC — Approximation of laws — Recreational craft — Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Access to the market — Impediment — Protection of the environment — Proportionality)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson, Joakim Roos
   (Case C-142/05) (1)

   (Directive 94/25/EC - Approximation of laws - Recreational craft - Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Access to the market - Impediment - Protection of the environment - Proportionality)
   2009/C 180/02
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Luleå tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Åklagaren

      Defendant: Percy Mickelsson, Joakim Roos

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Luleå tingsrätt — Interpretation of Articles 28 to 30 EC and of Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (OJ 2003 L 214, p. 18) — Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003, does not preclude national regulations which, for reasons relating to the protection of the environment, prohibit the use of personal watercraft on waters other than designated waterways.
   Articles 28 EC and 30 EC do not preclude such national regulations provided that:

               —

               the competent national authorities are required to adopt the implementing measures provided for in order to designate waters other than general navigable waterways on which personal watercraft may be used;

               —

               those authorities have actually made use of the power conferred on them in that regard and designated the waters which satisfy the conditions laid down in the national regulations, and

               —

               such measures have been adopted within a reasonable period after the entry into force of those regulations.

         It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 October 1997 in Case T-243/94: British Steel plc v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC - Action for annulment - State aid - Individual decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel undertakings - Lack of competence - Protection of legitimate expectations - Incompatibility with Treaty provisions - Discrimination - Inadequate statement of reasons - Breach of the rights of the defence - Articles 4 (b) and (c) and 15 and the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)

text:
 C 387/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                20 . 12 . 97
 4 . orders the Council, the Federal Republic of Germany                 Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
      and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.                  Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October
                                                                          1997, in which it:
 (') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
                                                                          1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the defendant
                                                                              and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 24 October 1997                              3 . orders the Council, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian
                                                                              Republic, SSAB Svenskt Stal AB and Det Danske
 in Case T-243/94: British Steel pic v. Commission of the                     Stålvalseværk A/S to bear their own costs.
                     European Communities (')
 (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual                   (■) OJ C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
 decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
 undertakings — Lack of competence — Protection of
legitimate expectations — Incompatibility with Treaty
provisions — Discrimination — Inadequate statement of
reasons — Breach of the rights of the defence —
Articles 4 (b) and (c) and 15 and the first and second
            paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            ( 97/C 387/26 )                                                      of 24 October 1997
                                                                         in Case T-244/94: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and
                 (Language of the case: English)                            Others v. Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                         (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual
                                                                         decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
In Case T-243/94 : British Steel pic, established in London,             undertakings — Misuse of power — Protection of
represented by Richard Plender QC, of the Bar of England                 legitimate expectations — Incompatibility with Treaty
and Wales, and by William Sibree, Solicitor, with an                    provisions — Discrimination — Inadequate statement of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     reasons — Breach of rights of the defence — Articles 4 (b)
Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich, supported by                 and (c) and 15 and the first and second paragraphs of
SSAB      Svenskt     Stal     AB,  established   in   Stockholm,                            Article 95 of the Treaty)
represented by John Boyce and Philip Raven , Solicitors,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                                    ( 97/C 387/27 )
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15 Cote d'Eich,
Det      Danske        Stålvalseværk     A/S,    established    in
Frederiksværk ( Denmark ), represented by Jonathan Alex                                 (Language of the case: German)
Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8— 10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                            In Case T-244/94 : Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl,
Communities ( Agents : Nicholas Khan and Ben Smulders ),                established in Düsseldorf ( Germany ), Thyssen Stahl AG,
supported by Council of the European Union ( Agents :                   established in Duisburg ( Germany ), Preussag Stahl AG,
Rüdiger Bandilla and John Carbery ), Italian Republic                   established in Salzgitter ( Germany ), Hoogovens Groep BV,
( Agents: Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio Ferri ),                      established in Ijmuiden ( Netherlands ), represented by
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : initially Alberto Navarro                   Jochim Sedemund and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwälte,
Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz, and then Luis Perez de                  Cologne, and, as regards Hoogovens Groep BV, by Eric
Ayala Beccerril ) and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established              Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
in Rome, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, of the                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with                 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Communities ( Agents: Bernd Langeheine and Ben
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I — application for the                     Smulders ), supported by Council of the European Union
annulment      of Commission         Decision   94/258/ECSC     of      ( Agents : Rüdiger Bandilla and Stephan Marquardt ), Italian
12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted by Spain to                  Republic ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio
the public integrated steel company Corporación de la                   Ferri ), and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established in Rome,
Siderurgia Integral ( CSI ) and Commission Decision 94/                 represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar,
259/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with an address
by Italy to the public steel sector ( Ilva group ) ( OJ L 112,          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
3 . 5 . 1994, pp . 58 and 64 respectively ) — the Court of              Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I — application for the annulment
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                 of Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of 12 April 1994
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.                concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the public steel


title: Case T-204/01: Action brought on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise Lindorfer against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 317/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
In support of her claims, the applicant submits:                          principle of equal treatment and freedom of movement for
                                                                          workers. The conversion to the Community pension system of
—     Arbitrariness and failure to state reasons, in that, first, the     the pension rights acquired by the applicant in Austria before
      administration changed its mind as to whether certain               her entry into service constitutes, in her view, discrimination
      medicines were reimbursable and, secondly, the principle            based on grade, sex, age and nationality.
      of the doctor’s free choice of medicines was disregarded
      in this case;
—     Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation and of
      the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
                                                                          Action brought on 6 September 2001 by André Ronsse
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-205/01)
Action brought on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise
   Lindorfer against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (2001/C 317/64)
                         (Case T-204/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2001/C 317/63)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 September 2001 by André
                                                                          Ronsse, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise Lindorfer,
resident in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Laure Levi and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
                                                                          —      annul the decision taken on 9 November 2000 by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Appointing Authority concerning the reimbursement of
                                                                                the household allowance considered by the Appointing
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 3 November 2000                          Authority to have been overpaid since 1 January 1994;
      fixing at 5 years, 5 months and 8 days the number of
      years of pensionable service to be taken into account for           —      annul the decision, taken by the Appointing Authority on
      the applicant’s Community pension following the transfer                   23 November 2000, to recover the household allowance
      of her pension rights acquired in Austria prior to her                     previously overpaid since 1 January 1994
      entry into the service of the European Communities and,                    (22 433,07 Euros) from the applicant’s monthly pension,
      in so far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated                  in 30 monthly payments of 770 Euros from December
      31 May 2001, to reject the applicant’s complaint of                        2000 to May 2003 inclusive and a monthly payment of
      2 February 2001;                                                           15,89 Euros in June 2003;
—     order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal               —      in any event, whatever the decision on the substance of
      basis devoid of all illegality, the years of pensionable                   the case, authorise his repayment arrangements to be
      service to be taken into account for the applicant’s                       made more flexible than those presently imposed on him,
      Community pension following the transfer of her pension                    with average monthly payments of a maximum of
      rights acquired in Austria;                                                385 Euros;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           —      order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her action, the applicant raises an objection to
the legality of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff                  The applicant in the present case, a retired official, states that,
Regulations and Articles 10.3 and 10.4 of the Council decision            according to the Appointing Authority, he unduly received
fixing the general provisions for giving effect to Article 11(2).         household allowance from 1 January 1994 to 31 October
According to the applicant, those articles, which form the legal          2000 and that, on the basis of Article 85, the Staff Regulations,
basis of the contested measure, constitute a breach of the                it is seeking to recover the amount overpaid.


title: Case T-402/04: Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Rhodia Consumer Specialties Limited against the Commission of the European communities

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/28

         Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Rhodia Consumer Specialties Limited against the Commission of the European communities
   (Case T-402/04)
   (2005/C 19/60)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Rhodia Consumer Specialties Limited,Watford, United Kingdom, represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

               —

               Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/Commission.


title: Case C-538/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-538/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/126
   Language of the case: Slovene
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-51/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV v Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct life assurance — Directive 92/96/EEC — Article 31(3) — Information to be provided to the policyholder — Obligation for the insurer to provide further information on costs and premiums under general unwritten rules of national law)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV v Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen
   (Case C-51/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct life assurance - Directive 92/96/EEC - Article 31(3) - Information to be provided to the policyholder - Obligation for the insurer to provide further information on costs and premiums under general unwritten rules of national law))
   (2015/C 213/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank te Rotterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV

      Defendant: Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive) must be interpreted as not precluding an insurance company, on the basis of general principles of domestic law such as the ‘open and/or unwritten rules’ at issue in the main proceedings, from being required to send to policyholders certain information additional to that listed in Annex II to that directive, provided that the information required is clear, accurate and necessary for the policyholder to understand the essential characteristics of the commitment and that it ensures a sufficient level of legal certainty, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

               2.

               The consequences under domestic law of a failure to provide that information are, in principle, irrelevant as regards the conformity of the obligation to provide information with Article 31(3) of Directive 92/96.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-302/00: Action brought on 7 August 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 285/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.10.2000
(b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97,
                                                                              T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         2.    alternatively, set aside that judgment in so far as it
                                                                              imposes the obligation to recover the aid granted together
Article 32(d) of Italian Law No 82/1963 provides for the                      with interest thereon;
payment of a tax by passengers disembarking or embarking in
the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers           3.    order the Commission of the European Communities to
arrive from, or are travelling to, places in another Member                   pay the costs in any event.
State or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
case of carriage between two places located on Italian territory.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
That manifest difference between tax regimes has a substan-
tially adverse effect on the exercise by the economic operators
concerned of their freedom to provide services, and therefore           The first plea concerns the allegedly erroneous characterisation
constitutes a clear restriction on freedom to provide maritime          of the measures as ‘new’ aid and a lack of reasoning in the
transport passenger services, contrary to Article 1(1) of Regu-         judgment of the Court of First Instance. The aid granted by the
lation No 4055/86.                                                      Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, as provided for by the Laws of
                                                                        1981 and 1985, cannot be regarded as ‘new’, despite having
                                                                        from a chronological standpoint been granted after the entry
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                        into force of Regulation No 1018/68 (1) which opened up the
                                                                        activity in question to competition, since the international
                                                                        road haulage sector could not yet be regarded as having been
                                                                        fully liberalised. Moreover, that aid did not have any effect on
                                                                        intra-Community trade and was not such as to have any
                                                                        impact on competition; the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance does not contain sufficient reasoning on those points.
Appeal brought on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic
against the judgement delivered on 15 June 2000 by the                  The second plea concerns alleged infringement of the principle
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                   of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                    of reasonableness. The effect of the judgment of the Court of
Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97                  First Instance requiring Italy to recover the aid granted from
to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between               1 July 1990 onwards for international transport operations is
Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian                      contrary to the aforesaid principles, in particular because it
Republic, and the Commission of the European Communi-                   was not until November 1995 that the Commission com-
                                  ties                                  menced the procedure contesting that aid. In addition, the
                                                                        operation of the decision will have very grave occupational
                                                                        and social consequences.
                         (Case C-298/00 P)
                          (2000/C 285/08)                               (1) OJ L 175 of 23.7.1968, p. 13.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2000 by
the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97 ,T-600/97 to
T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between
Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian Republic,
and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented by           Action brought on 7 August 2000 by the Commission of
Prof. Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Giacomo               the European Communities against the French Republic
Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
                                                                                (Case C-302/00)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 285/09)
1.    set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 15 June
      2000 by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-298/97,                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 August
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/5
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            according to the State, may adversely affect both the
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Christophe                  exercise of sound competition on the cigarette market
Giolito, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address               and the pursuit of a public health policy aimed at
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 combatting addiction to tobacco.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    (Different rates of tax for dark-tobacco and
the Court should:                                                         light-tobacco cigarettes)
—     declare that:                                                       —    Infringement of Articles 8 (2) and 16 (5) of Directive
                                                                               95/59/EC:
      by maintaining in force a system imposing a minimum
      reference price for all cigarettes, the French Republic has              Article 575a of the French Code Général des Impôts
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 (1) of Council          (General Tax Code) provides for the imposition of a
      Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other                    consumption duty fixed, for units of 1 000, at FRF 500 in
      than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of                      1999 and FRF 530 in 2000 as regards light-tobacco
      manufactured tobacco (1);                                                cigarettes and at FRF 400 in 1999 and FRF 470 in 2000
                                                                               as regard dark-tobacco cigarettes. The Commission is
      and that:                                                                pleased to note that the French authorities acknowledge
                                                                               that Community legislation permits only a single mini-
                                                                               mum excise duty to be levied in respect of all categories
      by maintaining in force a system imposing different tax
                                                                               and sorts of cigarettes. However, in the absence of any
      rates on dark-tobacco and light-tobacco cigarettes, to the
                                                                               modification of Article 575a of the French Code Général
      disadvantage of the latter, the French Republic has failed
                                                                               des Impôts, the infringement of Community law subsists.
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 (2) and 16 (5) of
      Directive 95/59/EC, under Article 2 of Council Directive
      92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of                —    Infringement of Article 90 EC:
      taxes on cigarettes (2) and under the first paragraph of
      Article 90 EC, alternatively under the second paragraph
      of Article 90 EC;                                                        The imposition of different rates of tax on light-tobacco
                                                                               and dark-tobacco cigarettes constitutes a discriminatory
                                                                               fiscal practice protecting national products, inasmuch as
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              99 % of the dark-tobacco cigarettes distributed in France
                                                                               are manufactured in that country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                The products concerned are ‘similar’ products within the
                                                                               meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, having
                                                                               the same fiscal classification (Article 2 (1) of Directive
(Minimum reference price)                                                      95/59/EC applies no distinction in that regard) and the
                                                                               same customs classification. The fact that, according to
—     Infringement of Article 9 (1) of Council Directive                       the French authorities, dark tobaccoes are sold at the
      95/59/EC:                                                                lowest prices, that the market in those products is not
                                                                               attracting any more customers and that consumption of
                                                                               those products is continuing to fall may explain the
      Article 572 of the French Code Général des Impôts
                                                                               reasons for the adoption of the French measures but does
      (General Tax Code) provides that the price per 1 000 units
                                                                               not justify them, since they constitute discriminatory
      of products of a given category sold under the same
                                                                               taxation contrary to the first paragraph of Article 90 EC.
      brand may not be lower, regardless of the style or unit of
      packaging used, than that applied to the best-selling
      product of that brand; this is tantamount to the impo-                   However, even if (quod non) it were accepted that light-
      sition of a minimum reference price. The imposition of                   tobacco and dark-tobacco cigarettes are not similar
      such a minimum reference price precludes any price                       products within the meaning of the first paragraph of
      variation within the same brand of cigarettes reflecting                 Article 90 EC and that a separate market therefore exists
      the number (10, 20, 30, etc.) or length of the cigarettes                for dark-tobacco cigarettes, the latter would clearly find
      concerned (normal length, ‘king size’, ‘super long’). More-              themselves competing with light-tobacco cigarettes.
      over, it restricts the manufacturer’s right to apply different
      prices within one and the same brand according to the
      quality or intrinsic characteristics of the products in
      question, such as cigarettes with or without filter-tips,           (1) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.
      medium-strength or mild cigarettes, menthol cigarettes,             (2) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 8.
      etc. The French Government is incorrect in its apparent
      view that Article 9 of the directive permits a Member
      State to intervene in the event of any price reduction
      which is freely accepted by the manufacturer and which,


title: Case T-183/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Jacinto (My Little Bear)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/37

         Action brought on 28 March 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Jacinto (My Little Bear)
   (Case T-183/11)
   2011/C 145/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S.Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registration No 384674 on 23 March 2011;

               —

               In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2011 in case R 494/2010-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘My Little Bear’, in brown, black, white and red, for goods in classes 12, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No W00962622

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 384674 of the figurative mark ‘Little Bear’, for goods in class 18

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the application for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed mark, due to the fact that the verbal elements would be the dominant elements in the complex marks.


title: Case T-26/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for industrial plastic sacks — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission
   (Case T-26/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality)
   2010/C 301/32
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trioplast Wittenheim SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: T. Petersson and O. Larsson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and V. Bottka, subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Parpala and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for plastic industrial sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Trioplast Witteheim SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-1/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 4 January 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Valentín Salmerón Sánchez

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 4 January 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Valentín Salmerón Sánchez
   (Case C-1/10)
   2010/C 63/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant: Valentín Salmerón Sánchez

      Other parties: Ministerio Fiscal and Dorotea López León

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the right of the victim to be understood, referred to in recital (8) of the preamble to the Framework Decision, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities responsible for the prosecution and punishment of conduct which has an identifiable victim have a positive obligation to allow the victim to express her assessment, thoughts and opinion on the direct effects on her life which may be caused by the imposition of penalties on the offender with whom she has a family relationship or a strong emotional relationship?

               2.

               Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the duty of States to recognise the rights and legitimate interests of victims creates the obligation to take into account their opinions when the penalties arising from proceedings may jeopardise fundamentally and directly the development of their right to freedom of personal development and the right to private and family life?

               3.

               Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities may not disregard the freely expressed wishes of victims where the imposition or maintenance in force of an injunction to stay away from the victim when the offender is a member of their family are opposed by the victim and where no objective circumstances indicating a risk of re-offending are established, where it is possible to identify a level of personal, social, cultural and emotional competence which precludes any possibility of subservience to the offender or, rather, as meaning that such an order should be held appropriate in every case in the light of the specific characteristics of such crimes?

               4.

               Should Article 8 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA providing that States are to guarantee a suitable level of protection for victims be interpreted as permitting the general and mandatory imposition of injunctions to stay away from the victim or orders prohibiting communication as ancillary penalties in all cases in which a person is a victim of crimes committed within the family, in the light of the specific characteristics of those offences, or, on the other hand, does Article 8 require that an assessment of each individual case be undertaken to allow the identification, on a case-by-case basis, of the suitable level of protection having regard to the competing interests?

               5.

               Should Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as permitting a general exclusion of mediation in criminal proceedings relating to crimes committed within the family, in the light of the specific characteristics of those crimes or, on the other hand, should mediation also be permitted in proceedings of that kind, assessing the competing interests on a case-by-case basis?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-96/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Rudolf Gabriel (Brussels Convention — Request for interpretation of Articles 5(1) and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has apparently won — Classification — Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Conditions)

text:
12.10.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 247/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), and by the Convention of
                                                                             29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
                                                                             (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                            11 July 2002                                     F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen
                                                                             (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
                                                                             F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
in Case C-96/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which
        the Oberster Gerichtshof): Rudolf Gabriel ( 1)
                                                                             it has ruled:
(Brussels Convention — Request for interpretation of
Articles 5(1) and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3 —
Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising                     The jurisdiction rules set out in the Convention of 27 September
has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the               1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
prize which he has apparently won — Classification —                         Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first                  1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
               paragraph, point 3 — Conditions)                              United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
                                                                             Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                          (2002/C 247/01)                                    Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of
                                                                             the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the
                   (Language of the case: German)                            Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic
                                                                             of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, are
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       to be construed as meaning that judicial proceedings by which a
                   in the European Court Reports)                            consumer seeks an order, in the Contracting State in which he is
                                                                             domiciled and pursuant to that State’s legislation, requiring a mail-
                                                                             order company established in another Contracting State to pay him a
                                                                             financial benefit in circumstances where that company had sent to
In Case C-96/00: Reference to the Court pursuant to the                      that consumer in person a letter likely to create the impression that a
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of                prize would be awarded to him on condition that he ordered goods to
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-                  a specified amount, and where that consumer actually placed such an
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-                   order in the State of his domicile without, however, obtaining
cial Matters by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a                     payment of that financial benefit, are contractual in nature in the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought before that                    sense contemplated in Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of that
court by Rudolf Gabriel, on the interpretation of Articles 5(1)              Convention.
and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on
the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep and goats)

text:
27.10.2001             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 303/3
1.  Where the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual                  forbids the legal order of a Member State to provide, where
    Property Rights (‘the TRIPs Agreement’), as set out in Annex 1                appropriate, that its judicial authorities are to determine of their
    C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                 own motion the period within which substantive proceedings
    approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters                       are to be instituted at the same time as ordering provisional
    within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                       measures, without any request by the defendant being necessary
    22 December 1994, became applicable in the Member State                       for that purpose.
    concerned at a time when the court of first instance has heard
    the case but not yet delivered its decision, Article 50 of the TRIPs    6.    Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor
    Agreement is applicable to the extent that the infringement of                forbids the Member States to provide, where appropriate, that
    intellectual property rights continues beyond the date on which               its judicial authorities are to determine of their own motion the
    the TRIPs Agreement became applicable with regard to the                      period within which substantive proceedings are to be instituted.
    Community and the Member States.                                              Since the provision in question is silent on that point, the scope
                                                                                of the powers conferred on appellate courts in that regard falls
                                                                                within the competence of each Member State.
2.  The procedural requirements of Article 50 of the TRIPs
                                                                            (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
    Agreement, and in particular Article 50(6), are not such as to
    create rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the
    Community courts and the courts of the Member States.
    Nevertheless, where the judicial authorities are called upon to
    apply national rules with a view to ordering provisional
    measures for the protection of intellectual property rights falling
    within a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in
    respect of which the Community has already legislated, they are
    required to do so as far as possible in the light of the wording                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    and purpose of Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement, taking
    account, more particularly, of all the circumstances of the case
    before them, so as to ensure that a balance is struck between the                                   (Fifth Chamber)
    competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
    right holder and of the defendant.
                                                                                of 13 September 2001
                                                                            in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
3.  Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement is to be interpreted as
    meaning that a request by the defendant is necessary in order
    for the provisional measures ordered by way of interim relief to        (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
    lapse on the ground that no substantive action has been brought         — Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep
    either within the period prescribed in the provisional measures                                        and goats)
    or, where no period is prescribed, within 20 working days or
    31 calendar days, whichever is the longer period.                                                   (2001/C 303/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
4.  In the absence of any provision in the TRIPs Agreement                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    concerning the point in time at which the period of 20 working                               in the European Court Reports)
    days or 31 calendar days prescribed by Article 50(6) of that
    agreement is to start, it is for each contracting party to
    determine when that period is to start, provided always that it         In Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s
    is ‘reasonable’ having regard to the circumstances of each case         Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
    and taking into account the balance to be struck between the            J. Guerra Fernández) — application for partial annulment of
    competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property           Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999
    right holder and of the defendant.                                      amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                            accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                            expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                            Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
                                                                            L 226, p. 26) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of Spain —
5.  In the absence of any Community rule on the point and in                the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
    accordance with Article 1(1) of the TRIPs Agreement, it is for          President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
    each Member State to determine the limits of the powers of the          (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
    judicial authorities in ordering provisional measures.                  General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 Sep-
    Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor               tember 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 303/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                of 13 September 2001
                                                                           in Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Failure by a State to comply with its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   and management — Failure to designate the competent
                                                                           authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the
                                                                                directive)
                     of 13 September 2001
in Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the                                                (2001/C 303/05)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for 1996
          and 1997 — Public storage of bovine meat)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (2001/C 303/04)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           In Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Abad) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                   in the European Court Reports)                          designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in
                                                                           the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC
                                                                           of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
In Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55), the Kingdom of Spain
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                  has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under that directive —
J. Guerra Fernández) — application for the partial annulment              the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
of Commission Decision 1999/603/EC of 28 July 1999                         President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                     P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger,
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      on 13 September 2001, in which it:
(EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 234, p. 6), in respect of the financial
adjustment imposed of 5 % of certain expenditure declared by
Spain under tariff headings 2111 (technical expenditure),
2112 (financial expenditure) and 2113 (other expenditure),                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
corresponding to the sector for public storage of bovine meat                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                         designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-                        first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of
teur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geel-                     27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it:                                      obligations under that directive;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
( 1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 October 1996 in Case T-336/94: Efisol SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 on substances that deplete the ozone layer - Allocation of quotas - Import licences - Refusal to grant - Application for compensation - Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
No C 354/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23 . 11 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 16 October 1996                             decision of the Commission of 16 December 1993 regarding
in Case T-37/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                                                                     the publication of a vacancy notice for the post ( ref:
                                                                     COM/ 144/93 ) of Head of Unit 1 ( Milk products ) of
                  European Communities ( 1 )                         Directorate D ( Organization of markets in livestock
 (Officials — Reinstatement — Determination of the level of          products ) of Directorate-General VI ( Agriculture ) — the
        a post — Act adversely affecting an official)                Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                          ( 96/C 354/46 )                            Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
                                                                     Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-37/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique                  2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
Leclercq, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel , of              those relating to the proceedings for interim
                                                                         measures .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : Ana                 (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission classifying as a grade A 5 post
the position ( ref. COM/022/93 ) of Head of Unit 4
( Technical group on infrastructure ) of Directorate E ( East
and    Southern     Africa )     of Directorate-General    VIII
( Development ) and for annulment of all subsequent
decisions, in particular the decision rejecting the applicant's       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for the post, as well as the decision appointing                               of 16 October 1996
Mr G. to that post — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.               in Case T-336/94 : Efisol SA v. Commission of the European
Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                                          Communities ( ! )
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            (Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 on substances that deplete
16 October 1996 , in which it:                                       the ozone layer — Allocation ofquotas — Import licences —
                                                                     Refusal to grant — Application for compensation —
                                                                                Protection of legitimate expectations)
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                96/C 354/48 )
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-336/94 : Efisol SA, having its registered office in
                                                                     Paris, represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and
                                                                    Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt et
                                                                     Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities ( Agent: Marc H. van der
                                                                    Woude ) — application under Article 178 and the second
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty seeking
                      of 16 October 1996                             compensation for the damage occasioned by the refusal to
in Case T-56/94 : Raffaele de Santis v. Commission of the            grant licences to import chlorofluorocarbon 11 into the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                         Community — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber,
                                                                     Extended Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President,
     (Officials — Vacancy notice — Abuse of process)                 C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M.
                          ( 96/C 354/47 )                            Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
In Case T-56/94 : Raffaele de Santis , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  2 . orders the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique
Leclercq, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel, of           (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:


title: Case C-307/08: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 19 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/22

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 19 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-307/08) (1)

   2010/C 148/34

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008