title: Case T-545/14: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark engineering for a better world — Merely confirmatory decision — Finality of the confirmed decision — Finding of the Court of its own motion — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/59

         Order of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
   (Case T-545/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark engineering for a better world - Merely confirmatory decision - Finality of the confirmed decision - Finding of the Court of its own motion - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 389/67)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by A. Pohlmann and subsequently by S. Hanne, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 303/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘engineering for a better world’ as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               GEA Group AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-426/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
   (Case C-426/17)
   (2017/C 300/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

      Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 93/13, in conjunction with Directive 2005/29 and with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 35 of Law 1/2000 on Civil Procedure, under which the bodies conducting procedures to settle claims for fees (jura de cuentas) may not ascertain of their own motion, before issuing the enforceable instrument, whether the contract concluded between the lawyer and a consumer contains unfair terms or whether there have been unfair commercial practices?

               2.

               Is a legal aid lawyer a ‘trader’ or ‘seller or supplier’ for the purposes of Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 (1) and Article 2(b) of Directive 2005/29? (2) Are Article 6(1)(d) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC applicable to situations in which a professional’s fees are regulated by a legal provision?

               3.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, does Directive 2005/29/EC preclude a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996 on legal aid, that makes it obligatory for the statutory fee regime to be applied, even when the professional fails to give information or gives misleading information concerning the calculation of the price for his services?

               4.

               Must Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which, if the application is upheld, makes the remuneration of lawyers who provide legal aid services subject to a scale of fees previously approved by those lawyers, from which the authorities of the Member State may not depart?

               5.

               Does that rule satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality to which Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC refers?

               6.

               Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which obliges the … [beneficiaries] of the right to legal aid, if their action succeeds and no order for costs is made, to pay the lawyer the fees determined in accordance with scales approved by a professional body amounting to more than 50 % of the annual amount of a social security benefit?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case T-111/07: Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Agrofert Holding v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Agrofert Holding v Commission
   (Case T-111/07)
   (2007/C 129/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Agrofert Holding a.s. (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Pokorný, lawyer)

      Defendant: The Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision SG.E.3/MIB/md D (2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 relating to the request for access to documents in merger Case No COMP/M.3543 — PKN Orlen/Unipetrol and Commission Decision 16796/16797 of 2 August 2006;

               —

               order the Commission to produce the documents in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment, under Article 230 EC, of Commission's Decision of 2 August 2006 (hereinafter ‘Decision I’) as well as the Commission's subsequent confirmatory decision of 13 February 2007 (hereinafter ‘Decision II’) relating to the request for access to all unpublished documents relating to the notification and pre-notification phases of the merger at stake.
   The applicant claims that both decisions are contrary to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (hereinafter ‘The Regulation’) as they do not fall within the exceptions enshrined in its Article 4(2), relating to protection of commercial interests, protection of the purpose of investigation, protection of Legal Advice or its Article 4(3) relating to protection of decision-making process.
   The applicant further submits that Article 4(2), first indent, of the Regulation should not be interpreted as if the exceptions applied to the entirety of the documents but only to the parts due to contain business secrets or commercially sensitive information. Thus, according to the applicant, the defendant could have either released to the public parts of the requested documents or blackened the parts containing the sensitive information without undermining the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, the notifying parties and third parties right's, the protection of legal advice or the institution's decision-making process.
   Moreover, the applicant contends that the defendant, instead of conducting individual examination of each document falling, in its view, under the exception of Article 4(2), third indent, of the Regulation, has generally refused the requested access on the basis of the sole fact that all documents contain business secrets and cannot be disclosed according to Article 17 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2). Such generalisation would be contrary to Article 4(6) of the Regulation.
   Besides, the applicant submits that the above-mentioned exceptions apply only if they are not waived by an overriding public interest in disclosure. According to the applicant, such interest to disclose the requested documents, deriving from the damage suffered by the applicant and minority shareholders of the acquired company, exists and outweighs the exceptions to the right of access.
   The applicant, moreover, claims that Decision I and II are contrary to Article 1 EU, second subparagraph, enshrining the principle of openness.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the defendant did not handle the confirmatory application promptly according to Article 8(1) of the Regulation but exceeded the time-limit for replying by 100 working days.

      (1)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43-48.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1-22).


title: Case C-548/03: Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 47/24               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
(c) In the alternative, breach of the AIT’s right to an effective        provisions on administrative measures in fiscal matters, such
      remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of                  as cooperation between tax authorities enabling or facilitating
      Fundamental Rights of the European Union.                          the collection of tax, are not specifically covered by that
                                                                         provision. The directive and the regulation have therefore been
                                                                         adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and of
                                                                         the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 23.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case C-548/03)
                         (2004/C 47/39)
                                                                         Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European
                                                                            Parliament against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                          (Case C-549/03)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
represented by C. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents,                                     (2004/C 47/40)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
—     annul Council Directive 2003/93/EC amending Directive              ties on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
      77/799/EEC concerning mutual assistance by the com-                represented by C. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents,
      petent authorities of the Member States in the field of            with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      direct and indirect taxation (1);
—     maintain the effects of the annulled directive until the           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
      European Parliament and the Council have adopted, on
      the appropriate legal basis, new legislation;
                                                                         —     annul Council Regulation No 1798/2003 of 7 October
                                                                               2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                               added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (1);
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of the annulled regulation until the
                                                                               European Parliament and the Council have adopted, on
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the appropriate legal basis, new legislation;
Directive 2003/93/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1798/03 should               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
be annulled because they should have been based on Article 95
EC and not on Article 93 EC. The difference in legal basis is not
merely formal, but directly affects the European Parliament’s
prerogatives. Indeed, according to Article 93 EC the Council
acts unanimously after merely consulting the Parliament,                 Pleas in law and main arguments
whereas, under Article 95 EC, the co-decision procedure
applies.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon are identical
                                                                         to those in Case C-548/03.
According to the field of application determined by the Treaty,
for provisions which have as their object improvement of the
conditions for the establishment and functioning of the                  (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 1.
internal market, the general rule is Article 95 EC. Article 93
EC provides otherwise in relation to indirect taxation, in
derogation, as lex specialis, from Article 95 EC. The ancillary


title: Case T-48/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2009 — Qualcomm v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Market for traffic telematics systems — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Commitments — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2009 — Qualcomm v Commission
   (Case T-48/04) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Market for traffic telematics systems - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2009/C 180/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV (Waarle, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: K. Mojzesowicz and A. Whelan, and subsequently by K. Mojzesowicz and X. Lewis, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: C.-D. Quassowski and S. Flockermann, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Lumma, acting as Agent, and by U. Karpenstein and A. Rosenfeld, lawyer); Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany); Daimler AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany); Daimler Financial Services AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler Services AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by J. Schütze and A. von Graevenitz, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 — DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom/JV) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, Daimler AG and Daimler Financial Services AG to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-53/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Créteil): Ferring SA v Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) (State aid — Tax benefit granted to certain undertakings — Wholesale distributors)

text:
C 17/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.1.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     1.    Declares that,
                                                                                —     by failing to require employers to evaluate all health and
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                              safety risks in the work place;
                                                                                —     by allowing employers to decide whether or not to enlist
                      of 15 November 2001                                              external services for the adoption of protective and
                                                                                preventive measures when the skills available within the
                                                                                undertaking are insufficient, and
in Case C-49/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                —     by failing to define the capabilities and aptitudes which
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                the persons responsible for protective and preventive
                                                                                measures against occupational risks to workers’ health
                                                                                and safety must possess,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety                        the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                       and health of workers)                                    Articles 6(3) (a) and 7(3), (5) and (8) of Council Directive
                                                                                89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
                                                                                to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
                           (2002/C 17/08)                                        at work.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-49/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and N. Yerrell) v Italian Republic (Agent:                                       (Sixth Chamber)
U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo) — application for a
declaration that:
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
—     by failing to require employers to evaluate all health and           in Case C-53/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      safety risks in the work place,                                      the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Créteil):
                                                                           Ferring SA v Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité
                                                                                sociale (ACOSS) (1)
—     by allowing employers to decide whether or not to enlist
      external services for the adoption of protective and                 (State aid — Tax benefit granted to certain undertakings —
      preventive measures when the skills available within the                                    Wholesale distributors)
      undertaking are insufficient, and
                                                                                (2002/C 17/09)
—     by failing to define the capabilities and aptitudes which
      the persons responsible for protective and preventive                                     (Language of the case: French)
      measures against occupational risks to workers’ health
      and safety must possess,                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 6(3)(a) and 7(3), (5) and (8) of Council Directive
89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures                 In Case C-53/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers              from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Créteil
at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                 (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
composed of: S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), President of the Fourth             before that court between Ferring SA and Agence centrale des
Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                    organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) — on the interpret-
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,                   ation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              Article 49 EC), Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2)
has given a judgment on 15 November 2001, in which it:                     EC) and Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
 ---pagebreak--- 19.1.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 17/7
Article 87 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                   (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann               before that court between Office des produits wallons ASBL
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;           and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for               of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
which it has ruled:                                                        to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                           uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the
1.    Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87        Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rappor-
      EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, because it is charged      teur), acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
      only on direct sales of medicines by pharmaceutical laboratories,    and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
      a measure such as the tax introduced by Article 12 of Law            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
      No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding            Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
      for 1998 amounts to State aid to wholesale distributors only         which it has ruled:
      to the extent that the advantage in not being assessed to the tax
      on direct sales of medicines exceeds the additional costs that       For the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive
      they bear in discharging the public service obligations imposed      77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
      on them by national law.                                             the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                           value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ‘subsidies directly linked
2.    Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) is to be       to the price’ must be interpreted as covering only subsidies which
      interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a tax advantage        constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods
      enjoyed by undertakings entrusted with the operation of a public     or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.
      service such as those concerned in the main proceedings in so        It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts
      far as that advantage exceeds the additional costs of performing     before it, whether or not the subsidy constitutes such consideration.
      the public service.
3.    Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                           (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
      EC) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a
      situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where
      there is no connection with the provision of services.
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              (Third Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)                                                        of 13 September 2001
                       of 22 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European
                                                                              Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (1)
in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office
        des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (1)                      (Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative
                                                                           circular concerning Internet usage within the European
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable                         Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to
        amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)                   the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in
                                                                              part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
                            (2002/C 17/10)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central
In Case C-184/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes
EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi                     Priesemann, member of staff of the European Central Bank,


title: Case T-326/07: Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/38

         Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission
   (Case T-326/07)
   (2007/C 247/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria), Agrodan SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand Fougeray, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (2).
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contested decision is scientifically incomplete and flawed in that it fails to consider all the scientific evidence on malathion submitted to the defendant. According to the applicants, it furthermore violates Articles 4(1), 5(1) of Directive 91/414 and Article 95(3) EC as the defendant refused to peer review the most resent data.
   The applicants further contend that the contested decision was based on a scientific report which was not established within the time-limit set out in Article 8(7) of Regulation 451/2000.
   Moreover, the applicants allege among others a violation of the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, subsidiarity and sound administration as well as the obligation to state reasons and their right to be heard.
   Finally, the applicants submit that they will not be able to exercise their intellectual property rights pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 91/414 in connection with the data package submitted to the defendant.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 146, p. 19.


title: Case C-349/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld by order of that court of 24 July 2001 in the case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS Anker GmbH

text:
C 369/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.12.2001
1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of television             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
signals (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51) the Kingdom of the Netherlands               19 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President                 A directive cannot, by itself, independently of any national law
of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La                        enacted by a Member State in order to implement it, have the effect
Pergola, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                    of establishing or rendering more serious the criminal liability of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which                persons who act in contravention of its provisions.
it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 du 18.3.2000.
1.    Declares that by failing to bring into force and to communicate
      all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use
      of standards for the transmission of television signals the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive.                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                            Bielefeld by order of that court of 24 July 2001 in the
                                                                            case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS Anker
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear the costs.
                                                                                GmbH
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                                                            (Case C-349/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/10)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      Court), Bielefeld of 24 July 2001, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 17 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                        (Second Chamber)                                    in the case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS
                                                                            Anker GmbH on the following questions:
                      of 19 September 2001                                  1.    Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on
                                                                                the establishment of a European Works Council or a
in Case C-18/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti): Criminal proceedings                      munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes
                   against Maurizio Perino (1)                                    of informing and consulting employees, in particular
                                                                                Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that an undertaking established
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive                             in the United Kingdom, which is regarded as the central
75/442/EEC — Storage of waste prior to a recovery operation                       management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
   — Invoking a directive in order to oppose an individual)                       and Article 4(3) of the directive, or an undertaking
                                                                                established in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which
                                                                                constitutes the central management of the controlling
                          (2001/C 369/09)                                         undertaking under Article 2(1)(e) and Article 3(1) of the
                                                                                directive, is obliged to provide another undertaking
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               resident in the Federal Republic of Germany belonging to
                                                                                the same group of undertakings with information on
                                                                                undertakings and establishments belonging to the group
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                of undertakings and on their legal form and represen-
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                tation arrangements and the average total number of
                                                                                employees and their distribution across the Member Sates
                                                                                and the undertakings?
In Case C-18/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti, Italy, for a                    2.    If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before                     affirmative: Does the obligation to provide information
that court against Maurizio Perino — on the interpretation of                     also encompass the names of the employees’ represen-
point R 13 of Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                        tation and their representatives who are to participate, on
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by                       behalf of the employees of the undertaking or the
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991                            undertakings controlled by it, in the establishment of a
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of                              European Works Council?
24 may 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB to Directive
75/442 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32) — the Court (Second                           (1) OJ L 254, p. 64.
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,


title: Case T-197/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC v Commission
   (Case T-197/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2011/C 226/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Stanbrook QC and Y. Virvilis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, V. Bottka and X. Lewis, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FMC Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-306/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — Schwenk Zement v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Schwenk Zement v Commission
   (Case T-306/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))
   2014/C 135/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Raible, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP 39520 — cement and related products) as regards the 11th series of questions in the questionnaire constituting Annex I thereto;

               2.

               Orders Schwenk Zement KG to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Schwenk Zement KG;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 December 2003 in Case C-129/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Construction contrary to Community law of national legislation by case-law and administrative practice — Conditions for the recovery of sums paid though not due)

text:
C 21/2                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               24.1.2004
Third Chamber                                                                        membership of the European Communities (Community law for
                                                                                1990), which is construed and applied by the administrative
—      Mr Schintgen                                                                  authorities and a substantial proportion of the courts, including
                                                                                the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy), in such a way that the
—      Ms Colneric                                                                   exercise of the right to repayment of charges levied in breach of
                                                                                Community rules is made excessively difficult for the taxpayer,
—      Sir Konrad Schiemann                                                          the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                EC Treaty;
                                                                               2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 9 December 2003
in Case C-129/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v Italian Republic (1)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Construc-                                             (Sixth Chamber)
tion contrary to Community law of national legislation by
case-law and administrative practice — Conditions for the                                             of 27 November 2003
              recovery of sums paid though not due)
                                                                               in Case C-185/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                             (2004/C 21/04)                                                       ties v Republic of Finland (1)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                          (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                               Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC — Rates of excise
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         duties on mineral oils — Fiscal control — Use of gas oil as
                     in the European Court Reports)                                                          motor fuel)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/05)
In Case C-129/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
(Agent: E. Traversa, assisted by P. Biavati) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia): Application for a declaration that, by
maintaining in force Article 29(2) of Law No 428 of 29 Decem-                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ber 1990 entitled ‘Disposizioni per l’adempimento di obblighi                                      in the European Court Reports)
derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia alle Comunità europee
(legge comunitaria per il 1990)’ (Provisions for the fulfilment of
obligations deriving from Italy’s membership of the European                   In Case C-185/00, Commission of the European Communities
Communities (Community law for 1990) (GURI, Ordinary                           (Agents: E. Traversa and I. Koskinen) with an address for
Supplement No 10 of 12 January 1991, p. 5) which, as                           service in Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of Sweden
construed and applied by the administrative authorities and                    (Agents: I. Simfors and A. Kruse) v Republic of Finland (Agents:
the courts, allows rules of evidence in relation to the passing                T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin) with an address for service in
on to third parties of the amount of charges levied in breach                  Luxembourg: Application for a declaration that, by main-
of Community rules which make exercise of the right to                         taining in force the laws and regulations on the use of gas oil
repayment of such charges virtually impossible or, at least,                   as a motor fuel, as they are applied in practice, the Republic of
excessively difficult for the taxpayer, the Italian Republic has               Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court,               (3) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmer-                  the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
mans, C. Gulmann, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,                          oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                      92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Col-                the rates of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
neric and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                p. 19), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrarm, has                   (Rapporteur), President, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
given a judgment on 9 December 2003, in which it:                              F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
1.     Declares that, by failing to amend Article 29(2) of Law                 judgment on 27 November 2003, in which it:
       No 428 of 29 December 1990 entitled ‘Disposizioni per
       l’adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia       1.    Declares that by maintaining in force the laws and regulations
       alle Comunità europee (legge comunitaria per il 1990)’                        on the use of gas oil as a fuel, as they are applied in practice,
       (Provisions for the fulfilment of obligations deriving from Italy’s           the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under


title: Case T-365/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Lithuania v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — ‘Natural handicaps’ and agri-environment — Appropriateness of controls — Flat-rate financial corrections — Proportionality)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lithuania v Commission
   (Case T-365/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development measures - ‘Natural handicaps’ and agri-environment - Appropriateness of controls - Flat-rate financial corrections - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 118/34)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and A. Petrauskaitė, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 5 % with respect to the agro-environmental measures connected with the criterion relating to the use of fertilisers;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3)

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

      (1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.


title: Case T-488/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Sarc v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Sarc v Commission
   (Case T-488/11)
   2011/C 331/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV (Bussum, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Speyart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 given in the State aid proceedings NN 68/2010 declaring that the aid granted does not constitute State aid; and

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to open the formal investigation procedure within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission, in a further submission, failed to associate SARC in its preliminary assessment in a sufficient manner;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission misapplied Article 107 (1) TFEU;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to order the Dutch authorities to submit an evaluation, or to commission an independent evaluation;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Commission failed to reason its decision to the required standard.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2001 in Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Objection of inadmissibility — Decision confirming a contested decision within the prescribed period — Inadmissibility)

text:
16.2.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 44/15
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin)
                            INSTANCE                                       — application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                           of 12 September 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                         of 15 June 2001                                   applicant on 6 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance
                                                                           (Second Chamber), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
                                                                           dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
in Case T-339/00 R Bactria Industriehygiene-Service                        made an order on 25 October 2001, the operative part of
   GmbH v Commission of the European Communities                           which is as follows:
(Application for interim relief — Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC — Urgency not estab-                      1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                               lished)
                                                                           2.   The applicant shall bear the costs;
                          (2002/C 44/27)
                                                                           3.   There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene
                                                                                made by the European Broadcasting Union.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
In Case T-339/00 R: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH,
established at Kirchheimbolanden (Germany), represented by
K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and L. Ström) —
application for suspension of operation of Article 6(2) and (3)
and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal                                             INSTANCE
products (OJ L 228, 2000, p. 6) — the President of the Court
of First Instance has made an order on 15 June 2001, the                                          of 2 August 2001
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      in Case T-111/01 R Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                           (Application for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                           ation of a measure — State aid — Legal interest in bringing
                                                                                proceedings — Urgency)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/29)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 25 October 2001
in Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6) v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                          In Case T-111/01: Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH, established in
                                                                           Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by P. von Woedtke, lawyer,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Objection of                     V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the suspen-
inadmissibility — Decision confirming a contested decision
                                                                           sion of operation of Commission Decision C (2001) 1028 of
       within the prescribed period — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           28 March 2001 on State aid implemented by the Federal
                                                                           Republic of Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co.
                          (2002/C 44/28)                                   Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, a
                                                                           holding company which includes Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Geräte GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA
                                                                           Kältetechnik GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik
                                                                           GmbH; SKL Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisen-
                                                                           gießerei GmbH; Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer
In Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6), established                Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) — the President of the Court of First
in Paris (France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an            Instance has made an order on 2 August 2001, the operative
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the               part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-270/14 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/14

         Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-270/14 P)
   2014/C 303/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               Set aside paragraph 2 of the Decision dismissing the action as to the remainder;

               2)

               Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with direction as to the applicable law;

               3)

               Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1). In summary, it contends that the General Court erred by purporting to limit the conditions in which a likelihood of confusion may arise between a ‘family’ of trade marks and a later trade mark. Alternatively the Appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion taking into account all relevant factors.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark,

      OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case C-251/10 P: Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2010 — KEK Diavlos v European Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2010 — KEK Diavlos v European Commission
   (Case C-251/10 P) (1)

   2011/C 89/26
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Public service television - Complaint - Action for declaration of failure to act - Commission's duty to investigate - Time-limit - Procedure under Article 93(2) - Serious difficulties)

text:
7.11.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/17
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 15 September 1998                                              of 16 September 1998
                                                                  in Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord-
in Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited v. Commission of the            West Brabant' NV v. Commission of the European
                 European Communities (1)                                                Communities (1)
(State aid Ð Formal investigation procedure under                 (State aids Ð Tax exemptions Ð Refusal to open the
Article 93(2) of the Treaty Ð Conditional decision                procedure laid down by Article 93(2) of the Treaty Ð
approving aid in the form of a capital injection to be            Meaning of person concerned Ð Confirmatory act Ð
carried out in tranches Ð Precondition of payment of the                                  Inadmissibility)
second tranche not satisfied Ð Subsequent decision
                                                                                (98/C 340/30)
authorising payment of the second tranche Ð Action for
                         annulment)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 340/29)
                                                                  In Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord-
                                                                  West Brabant' NV, with its registered office at
                                                                  Oudenbosch (Netherlands), represented by P. H. L. M.
               (Language of the case: English)                    Kuypers of the Breda Bar and H. M. Gilliams of the
                                                                  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of J.-M. Bauler, 47 Grand-rue, against
                                                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. van
In Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited, established in Dublin,         Vliet), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
represented by Trevor Soames and Alan Ryan, Solicitors,           M. Fierstra and J. S. van den Oosterkamp) Ð application
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  for the annulment of the Commission's Decision SG(95)
Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                D/8442 of 3 July 1995 concerning Aid No NN 13/95 Ð
Hardt, against Commission of the European Communities             Netherlands Ð Wet belastingen op milieugrondslag Ð the
(Agents: Nicholas Khan and Anders Christian Jessen),              Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
supported by Ireland (Agents: Michael Buckley and Joseph          Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R.
Finnegan) and by Aer Lingus Group plc, established in             García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
Dublin, represented by Paul Gallagher SC, of the Irish Bar,       Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
and by James O'Dwyer and Patrick McGovern, Solicitors,            has given a judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Maître ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue Heine Ð
application for annulment of the Commission decision of           1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
21 December (OJ C 399 of 31.12.1994, p. 1), authorising
the Irish Government to pay the second tranche of the aid         2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those
to the Aer Lingus group approved by Commission                        incurred by the Commission;
Decision 94/118/EC of 21 December 1993 concerning aid
to be provided by the Irish Government to the Aer Lingus
                                                                  3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its
group (OJ L 54 of 25.2.1994, p. 30) Ð the Court of First
                                                                      own costs.
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
C. W. Bellamy, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair,        (1) OJ C 333 of 9.12.1995.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
15 September 1998, in which it:
1. dismisses the application;                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
                                                                  in Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA v. Commission
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                        of the European Communities (1)
    Commission and Aer Lingus Group plc;
                                                                  (State aid Ð Public service television Ð Complaint Ð
                                                                  Action for declaration of failure to act Ð Commission's
                                                                  duty to investigate Ð Time-limit Ð Procedure under
                                                                              Article 93(2) Ð Serious difficulties)
3. orders Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (98/C 340/31)
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.                                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  In Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA, a company
                                                                  governed by Spanish law, established in Madrid (Spain),
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
represented by Santiago MunÄoz Machado, of the Madrid               Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifattu-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               riera (EFIM), established in Rome, represented by Antonio
Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones, 2 Rue Gabriel                     Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36
Lippmann, v. Commission of the European Communities                 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against Commission of
(Agents: initially GeÂrard Rozet, and Fernando Castillo de          the European Communities (Agents: initially Paul Nemitz,
la Torre, and then Mr Rozet and Juan Guerra FernaÂndez,             Lucio Gussetti and Enrico Altieri, subsequently Paul
supported by the French Republic (Agents: Catherine de              Nemitz and Paolo Stancanelli), supported by French
Salins, and Gauthier Mignot), Ð application for a                   Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins, Kareen Rispal-
declaration under Article 175 of the EC Treaty that the             Bellanger, Jean-Marc Belorgey, FreÂdeÂrik Million and
Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under the               Gautier Mignot) and Manoir Industries SA, established in
Treaty, first, by failing to adopt a decision in relation to        Paris, represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of
the complaints made by the applicant against the                    the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Kingdom of Spain for breach of Article 92 of the Treaty             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 rue
and secondly by failing to initiate the procedure provided          Goethe, Ð application for annulment of Commission
for under Article 93(2) of the Treaty, alternatively, for           Decision 96/614/EC of 29 May 1996 concerning certain
annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty of the                    measures granted by Italy in favour of Breda Fucine
Commission's decision allegedly contained in a letter of            Meridionali SpA (OJ L 272 of 25.10.1996, p. 46),
20 February 1996, Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              declaring the State aid granted by the Italian Government
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,              to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA incompatible with the
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.          common market and illegal, Ð the Court of First Instance
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V.
on 15 September 1998, in which it:                                  Tiili, President; C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and
                                                                    J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
1. declares that the Commission failed to fulfil its                1998, in which it:
     obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a
     decision following the two complaints lodged by the
                                                                    1. dismisses the applications;
     applicant on 2 March 1992 and 12 November 1993;
                                                                    2. orders the applicants to pay jointly and severally the
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                    costs incurred by the Commission and by Manoir
     other than those incurred as a result of the                        industries SA;
     intervention by the French Republic;
                                                                    3. orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs
                                                                    (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
     together with the costs incurred by the applicant by
     reason of its intervention.
(1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
                                                                    in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96: Mediocurso,
                                                                    Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the Commission of the European Communities (1)
                     of 15 September 1998                           (European Social Fund Ð Approval decision Ð Reduction
in Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96: Breda Fucine                 of financial assistance Ð Prior hearing of beneficiary Ð
Meridionali SpA (BFM) and Ente Partecipazioni e Finan-              Consultation of the Member State Ð Protection of
ziamento Industria Manifatturiera (EFIM) v. Commission              legitimate expectations Ð Legal certainty Ð Statement of
               of the European Communities (1)                                reasons Ð Manifest error of assessment)
(State aid Ð Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty Ð Notice of                                     (98/C 340/33)
initiation of procedure Ð Aid not explicitly mentioned Ð
Aid to companies located in disadvantaged regions Ð                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   Restructuring Ð Recovery of aid Ð Limitation period)
                         (98/C 340/32)                              In Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96, Mediocurso, Esta-
                                                                    belecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, established in
                                                                    Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Moura Pinheiro, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                    31, Grand-rue, against Commission of the European
In Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96, Breda Fucine                 Communities (Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut
Meridionali SpA (BFM), established in Bari (Italy), and             Simonsson) Ð application for the annulment of


title: Case T-365/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM — Free (FREE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FREE — Earlier national word mark FREE and earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM — Free (FREE)
   (Case T-365/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FREE - Earlier national word mark FREE and earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2010/C 346/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Papadiamantis and A. Koliothomas, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 1346/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Eidikes Ekdoseis AE

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Free SAS in the proceedings before the Court.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case F-4/14: Action brought on 13 January 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/22

         Action brought on 13 January 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-4/14)
   2014/C 61/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 announcing his dismissal;

               —

               set the amount of EUR 35 000, together with default interest, which the European Parliament is under an obligation to pay him should his re-instatement meet with insurmountable legal obstacles;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on 17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez and the European Parliament (Case C-8/99 P)

text:
C 71/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
    competent authority which forwarded the application                this case to a form of arbitrary discrimination between
    to the Commission with a favourable opinion is                     officials engaged when the decision of 7 February 1996
    obliged to give the consent in writing' allowing the              concerning the criteria for initial grading' was in force
    product to be placed on the market, or does that                   and officials, such as the appellant, engaged at a time
    authority retain a discretion not to give such consent?            when the Commission automatically refused to apply
                                                                       Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(2) Must the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 23 January 1997 under which the                    Inconsistency
    French authorities are to authorise the placing on the
    market of the product . . . notified by Ciba-Geigy
    Limited' be interpreted as requiring the French
                                                                       On the one hand the Court of First Instance held in
    Government to give its consent in writing'?
                                                                       Alexopoulou I (1) that the Commission's decision of
                                                                       1 September 1983 was contrary to the Staff Regulations,
(1) On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically      while on the other it allowed the Commission to rectify
    modified organisms, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.                     the irregularity only in part, that is with effect from
                                                                       5 October 1995.
                                                                       Such reasoning appears inconsistent also in the light of the
                                                                       previous case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the
                                                                       grading of staff, which the Commission accepts as being
Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli                    of general application.
against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   Inadequate statement of reasons
Campoli and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-7/99 P)                                The Court of First Instance fails to give a proper
                        (1999/C 71/31)                                 statement of reasons for its finding that rejection of the
                                                                       official's request for a review of his initial classification is
                                                                       not contrary to 5(3) of the Staff Regulations' inasmuch as
                                                                       it does not explain how it arrives at such a conclusion.
An appeal against the order delivered on 12 October 1998
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   (1) Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC
Campoli and the Commission of the European                                 II-683.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 January 1999 by Franco
Campoli, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari Bar.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez
                                                                       de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on
Ð set aside the order delivered by the Court of First                  17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of
    Instance on 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97                       First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    Campoli v Commission;                                              T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez
                                                                                and the European Parliament
Ð uphold the claims submitted at first instance;                                              (Case C-8/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/32)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 November
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between
                                                                       Carmen Gómez de Enterría Sanchez and the European
Breach of the principle of equal treatment                             Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 15 January 1999 by Carmen
                                                                       Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez, represented by Eric
To find the application inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks              Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
to challenge afresh, without there being any new facts, the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
decision taken by the Commission in 1985, amounts in                   Fort Rheinsheim.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/19
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                        decision (see above), inasmuch as that letter
                                                                                may be regarded, by reason of its content and
                                                                                terms, as a decision capable of adversely
                                                                                affecting the appellant;
1. Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
                                                                               Ð an order that the Parliament is to pay the
                                                                                entirety of the costs incurred both at first
                                                                                instance and in the present appeal proceedings.
2. As a consequence:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    (a) set aside the judgment under appeal;
                                                                     Ð Contravention of Article 176 of the EC Treaty and the
                                                                          general legal principle of res judicata: the judgment
    (b) adjudicate, upholding        the   appellant's   initial
                                                                          under appeal disregards the fact that the legal
        application for:
                                                                          consequence of annulment is that the pre-existing
                                                                          position must be restored. Thus by virtue of the
        Ð annulment of the decision taken by the Bureau                   annulling judgment, the appellant's retirement from
            of the European Parliament at its meeting of                  her post is deemed never to have taken place.
            15 and 16 July 1996 (Ref.: PE 251.357/BUR)                    Moreover, the grounds stated in the judgment under
            in its capacity as appointing authority,                      appeal are legally unsound since they draw inferences
            whereby it:                                                   from a subsequent situation, that is to say, from the
                                                                          initiation of a new procedure after the annulling
            Ð confirmed its decision of 30 November                       judgment (1), which must be distinguished from the
                 1994;                                                    effects flowing from the annulment itself. The decision
                                                                          at issue, retiring the appellant from her post,
            Ð in accordance with its decision of                          constitutes no more than confirmation of a decision
                 2 February 1995, rejected the appellant's                which was annulled by judgment of the Court of First
                 candidature      for      the      post      of          Instance of the European Communities;
                 Director-General in DG I, which was filled
                 by the candidate selected as most suitable,
                 given the increased role played by that             Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
                 Directorate General;                                     Article 25, second paragraph, and Article 50 of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations, and the general legal principle that a
            Ð rejected the appellant's application for the                decision must be based on relevant grounds: the
                 post of Special Adviser (Grade A 1) at the               judgment under appeal merely considered whether the
                 Epicentre in Brussels, having regard to the              appellant was formally in a position to ascertain the
                 highly specialised career profile required               reasons for her retirement;
                 for such duties and in view also of the fact
                 that the post was at that time blocked by a
                 previous decision of the political and              Ð Breach of the rights of the defence;
                 budgetary authority;
            Ð consequently, gave effect to the measure               Ð Infringement of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations: by
                 retiring the appellant from her post;                    addressing only the circular argument that the
                                                                          restructuring of the Secretariat General necessitated
        Ð as a consequence of the forthcoming decision,                   the appellant's retirement Ð without, however,
            a declaration that, in accordance with                        determining precisely in what respect the appellant
            Article 176 of the Treaty of Rome, the                        could neither accommodate nor have accommodated
            appointing authority must restore all the                     the needs created by the restructuring measures, on the
            appellant's rights, the contested decisions being             assumption that such measures were in fact
            deemed retroactively never to have existed,                   implemented (which they were not) Ð the judgment
            ensuring in particular that the appellant is                  under appeal is in breach of the rule referred to in the
            reinstated, at her proper grade, in the post                  plea;
            from which she was retired and paid any
            salary arrears due between the date of her
            retirement until her reinstatement, together             Ð Failure to comply with the requirement concerning a
            with default interest at the rate of 8 % per                  reasonable period of time and infringement of
            annum;                                                        Article 25, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                     (1) The judgment of 14.5.1996 in Case T-82/95, OJ C 180,
        Ð so far as is necessary, annulment of the letter                22.6.1996, p. 28.
            of 9 October 1996 from Klaus Hänsch,
            President of the European Parliament,
            informing the appellant of the Bureau's