title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 13 December 1996 in the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab (Case C-412/96)

text:
No C 74/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 3 . 97
the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by                          If the appellants' action is not considered admissible, in
Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake                      the particular circumstances of their case, there would be
Henrikson, represented by Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechts                  no other feasible way for them to challenge the unlawful
anwalt, Diisseldorf, Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin,             administrative act of the Commission constituted by
and Vanessa Turner, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of                    Regulation ( EC) No 1734/95 ('). This would lead to an
England and Wales, with an address for service in                        unacceptable loophole in the system of judicial review of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62,                        administrative acts of the Commission.
avenue Guillaume .
                                                                         (') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural
                                                                              conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugarbeet prices
— set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of                       and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector
       4 October 1996,                                                        ( OJ No L 165 , 15 . 7 . 1995 , p. 12 ).
— declare that the application in Case T- 197/95 is
       admissible,
— order the Commission to bear the costs of these
       proceedings and the proceedings                 concerning       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
       admissibility in Case T-197/95 .                                 Grande Instance de Metz by judgment of that court of
                                                                         19 December 1996 in the case of Procureur de la
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       Republique against Andre Ambry
                                                                                ( Case C-410/96 )
In its legal analysis of the case, the Court of First Instance                                           ( 97/C 74/23 )
infringed Community law (in particular, Article 173 (4 ) of
the EC Treaty, which grants the appellants the right to
challenge the contested Regulation since this Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directly and individually concerned them ) by reaching                  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
conclusions which were :                                                Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Metz, of 19 December
                                                                         1996, received at the Court Registry on 24 December
( i ) not justified on the facts;                                        1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Procureur de
                                                                        la Republique v. Andre Ambry on the following question:
( ii ) in contradiction to the case-law of the Court of Justice
       of the European Communities and of the Court of                  Are the provisions of Article 14 of Decree No 94.490 of
       First Instance itself.                                           15 June 1994, adopted pursuant to Article 31 of Law No
                                                                        92.645 of 13 July 1992, to be regarded as not in
In particular the Court of First Instance infringed                     conformity with Directive 73/183/EEC ( J ), the first
Community law in four ways .                                            Coordination Directive of 15 December 1989 (2 ),
                                                                        Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European
In the first place, the Court took the view that the                    Communities and Article 73 B of the Maastricht Treaty, in
contested Regulation did not constitute a bundle of                     so far as they require that, where a financial security is
decisions, thus failing to recognize the true nature of this            issued in a Member State of the EC other than France, an
Regulation.                                                             agreement must be concluded between the credit
                                                                        institution or insurance company situated in the Member
The second infringement of Community law by the Court                   State other than France and a credit institution or an
of First Instance was the failure, having regard to the case           insurance company situated in France ?
law of the Court of Justice, to take proper account of the
specific and serious negative effect on the appellants of the           (') OJ No L 194, 16 . 7. 1973 , p . 1 .
contested Regulation, in particular having regard to the                ( 2 ) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .
nine currency devaluations in Sweden between 1 January
and 30 June 1995 .
The third infringement of Community law was the Court
of First Instance 's conclusion that the Commission was
not, in this case, under a duty to take account of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
consequences of the measure it envisaged adopting for the              Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 13 December
situation of certain individuals, i . e . the Swedish sugarbeet         1996 in the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy
growers .                                                                                and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab
                                                                                ( Case C-412/96 )
The fourth infringement of Community law was the Court
of     First  Instance's   conclusion that    neither   individual                                      ( 97/C 74/24 )
Swedish beet growers ( such as Mr Henrikson ) nor Sveriges
Betodlares Centralforening as the association representing              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
all Swedish beet growers in negotiations with the Swedish              the European Communities by an order of the Korkein
sugar manufacturer were individually concerned by the                  Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
contested Regulation .                                                  13 December 1996, which was received at the Court
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97               EN [                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/13
Registry on 23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                 2 . Must the words '[. . .] legally due [. . .]' in Article 2(1 )
the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy                          of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1697/79 be
Pohjolan Liikenne Ab on the following questions :                              interpreted as meaning that:
1 . Is the Regulation on public service obligations                            — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
       ( Regulation (EEC ) No 1191 /69 (') as amended by
                                                                                when the competent authorities receive a
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1893/91 (2 )), in particular                          declaration containing an incorrect tariff heading
       Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1 ( 3 ), to be                        that are conclusive for determining whether an
                                                                                amount is due ?
       interpreted as meaning that it entitles a transport
       undertaking to have a part, of whatever size, of its
       operating obligation terminated, for example, only a                         or as meaning that:
       certain part of one route operated ?
                                                                               — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
                                                                                when the competent authorities establish that a
2 . If the answer to the first question is wholly or                                declaration contained an incorrect tariff heading
       conditionally in the affirmative, in which case the                          that are conclusive for determining whether an
       Korkein Hallinto-oikeus may remit the case to the                            amount is due ?
       Laaninhallitus for a fresh decision, in order to reach a
       final decision in the case the question arises whether it
       also follows, from the right given to transport                    3 . A. What is the legal effect of a decision by the
       undertakings in the Regulation on public service                             European Commission, after consultation with the
       obligations to have a service obligation partially                           Customs Code Committee, addressed to a Member
       terminated, that the authorities' power under national                       State following a request by a Member State to the
        law to revoke a traffic licence in order reasonably to                      Committee that it take a decision on whether there
       reorganize the traffic is precluded or restricted where                      was, in specified circumstances, justification for
       the need to reorganize results from a partial                                granting remission of import duties, and in which
       termination .                                                                the Commission and the Committee decided that
                                                                                there was no justification for granting remission of
 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( I), p. 276.                                 import duties referred to in the Member State's
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 169, 29 . 6 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                          request to the Committee ?
                                                                               B. Is it compatible with the legal effects described in
                                                                                the answer to question 3 .A for a court in the
                                                                                Member State concerned to rule in a judgment
                                                                                that there was no necessary legal basis for post
                                                                                clearance recovery of import duties ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Appeals and
 Objections Committee of the Hojesteret by decision of
 that      court   of 20      December     1996   in  the   case  of
                 Skatteministeriet v. Sportgoods A/S
                            ( Case C-413/96 )
                               ( 97/C 74/25 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                          Adjudicator, by decision of the Adjudicator of
                                                                          20 December 1996, in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        against Secretary of State for the Home Department
 European Communities by decision of the Appeals and                                              ( Case C-416/96 )
  Objections Committee of the Hojesteret ( Supreme Court)
  of 20 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                               97/C 74/26 )
  Registry on 27 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
  the case of Skatteministeriet ( Ministry of Fiscal Affairs ) v.
  Sportgoods A/S on the following questions :                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Immigration
                                                                           Adjudicator of 20 December 1996, which was received at
  1 . Must Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   the Court Registry on 31 December 1996 , for a
        No 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery of import                preliminary ruling in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
         duties or export duties which have not been required              against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on
         of the person liable for payment on goods entered for             the following questions:
         a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay
         such duties ( OJ No L 197, 1979, p. 1 ) be interpreted
         as meaning that post-clearance recovery may be                    1 . In a case of a Moroccan national, who is lawfully
         effected only in cases in which there is a difference in               resident in a Member State and who is lawfully
         the amount of duty involved, but not in cases of                       employed in that Member State, does the term
         incorrect declarations of headings which have not had                  'working conditions' in Article 40 of the EC/Morocco
         any bearing on the amount ?                                            Cooperation Agreement include security of such


title: Case T-97/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Rossi v OHIM — Marcorossi (MARCOROSSI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MARCOROSSI — Earlier national and international word marks MISS ROSSI — Earlier Community word mark SERGIO ROSSI — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Rossi v OHIM — Marcorossi (MARCOROSSI)
   (Case T-97/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MARCOROSSI - Earlier national and international word marks MISS ROSSI - Earlier Community word mark SERGIO ROSSI - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion)
   (2006/C 224/86)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Sergio Rossi SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: A Ruo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marcorossi Srl (Bodio Lommago, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boleto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2004 (Case R 226/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sergio Rossi SpA and Marcorossi Srl
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the intervener and to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-440/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/2

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-440/15 P)
   (2016/C 191/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: AgriCapital Corp. (represented by: P. Meyer, Rechtsanwalt, M. Gramsch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   By order of 3 March 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 213, 6.9.2003

text:
20.9.2003        EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                        C 226/19
                                                             III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 226/40)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 213, 6.9.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 200, 23.8.2003
          OJ C 184, 2.8.2003
          OJ C 171, 19.7.2003
          OJ C 158, 5.7.2003
          OJ C 146, 21.6.2003
          OJ C 135, 7.6.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                           EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-321/00: Action brought on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse                  4.b )If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of                      such a prohibition on export solely on the basis of the
N.V.      Sturing      Afvalverwijdering       Noord-Brabant,                principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland, UTR Umwelt                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke                          Community?
                   Ordening en Milieubeheer
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                        (Case C-311/00)                                (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                        (2000/C 335/50)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August
                                                                       Action brought on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Repub-
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Sturing
                                                                       lic of Germany against the Commission of the European
Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant, N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid
                                                                                Communities
Nederland, UTR Umwelt Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:                                                                                (Case C-321/00)
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-                                   (2000/C 335/51)
     ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the
     Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     work Directive?                                                   Communities on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the          Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurheindorfer Strasse 108,
     above question? For the operation referred to therein to          D-53117 Bonn, and Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Charlot-
     exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a        tenstrasse 65, D-10117 Berlin, acting as Agents.
     treatment, can be used several times or can be taken
     back?                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned               1.    Annul Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000
     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly               amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
     ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of              Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
     operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework                    visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
     Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,               action relating to medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139 of
     and if so which one?                                                    10 June 2000, p. 28);
3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether         2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
     an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery                   ings.
     within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
     Directive?
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
     operation and a recovery operation, must priority be              —     Infringement of the Council’s legislative competence
     given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying                through circumvention of the prescribed legislative pro-
     that operation or does neither of the two lists take                    cedure: the contested directive contains a series of amend-
     precedence over the other?                                              ments which do not in any way relate to the adaptation
                                                                             of existing provisions governing pharmacovigilance to
4.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a                    ‘scientific and technical progress’ (Article 29i of Directive
     shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                     75/319) but alter specific legal obligations of undertak-
     raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(1) of                ings having a duty to notify within the context of
     Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on                    pharmacovigilance. In addition, the efficacy of hitherto
     the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,               existing national notification procedures is adversely
     into and out of the European Community to the shipment                  affected inasmuch as they have to be replaced by a system
     solely on account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency               based on a European data-processing network which will
     at national level without showing that self-sufficiency at              still not be available for that purpose on 5 December
     national level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at              2001, the date by which the contested directive must be
     Community level?                                                        transposed.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/29
    —    The power newly conferred on the Commission to                —     Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 253
         draw up ‘guidance on the collection, verification                   EC): the recitals in the preamble give the misleading
         and presentation of adverse reaction reports ...’                   impression that the directive carries out no more than a
         [Article 29g(a)] is in particular of substantive signifi-           merely technical adaptation to international develop-
         cance for the scope of the duty of notification                     ments in pharmacovigilance and the related development
         [Article 29d(4)] and for the examination of pharma-                 of data-processing and therefore provide a false picture
         covigilance data with regard to suspension, with-                   as to the justification of the legal basis claimed by the
         drawal or variation of the authorisation for a                      Commission (Articles 29i and 37a of Directive
         medicinal product (Article 29h). The power of the                   75/319/EEC).
         Commission to adopt rules, the content of which is
         not yet even known, classifiable purely within the
         area of institutional law, clearly does not constitute
         a rule for adapting the directive to ‘scientific and
         technical progress’.
    —    Article 29d(2) and (3) of the new version will in
         future limit the duty of notification devolving on            Action brought on 30 August 2000 by the Commission
         the undertaking concerned to notification of the              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
         ‘competent authority of the Member State in whose                                        Netherlands
         territory the incident occurred’, and thus alters its
         substantive content. This amendment would be                                          (Case C-322/00)
         acceptable from a health-policy perspective if the
         data-processing network to be set up by the Agency
                                                                                (2000/C 335/52)
         under the new version of Article 29f could also
         guarantee the provision of equivalent information,
         in terms of time and quality, to the authorities              An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
         of the other Member States; however, this data-               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         processing network is not yet in existence, and it is         on 30 August 2000 by the Commission of the European
         not envisaged that it will be set up before or shortly        Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and
         after the period for transposition of the contested           Christopher Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as
         directive has expired.                                        Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                       of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
    —    Article 29d(4) of the new version alters the existing         Centre, Kirchberg.
         duty to notify suspected serious adverse reactions
         occurring in the territory of a non-member country,           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
         inasmuch as — at least according to the English-              the Court should:
         and French-language versions — such adverse reac-
         tions will in future be notifiable only if they are           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
         unexpected. This means that risks involved in the                   regulations and administrative measures referred to in
         use of medicinal products which must in principle                   Articles 4 and 5(4) and (5) and points 1, 2, 4 and 6 of
         be regarded as being known will no longer be                        part A of Annex II and points 1(2), 1(3) and 2 of Annex III
         covered, in particular the ‘known’ risk of viral                    to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
         transmission in the case of medicinal products                      concerning the protection of waters against pollution
         containing biological components. This amendment                    caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), the
         likewise does not constitute an adaptation to ‘scien-               Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
         tific and technical progress’.                                      obligations under that directive;
    —    The option for the marketing authorisation holder             2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
         to negotiate notification periods, introduced by
         Article 29d(7) of the new version, constitutes a
         substantive amendment having nothing to do with               Pleas in law and main arguments
         adaptation to ‘scientific and technical progress’.
                                                                       —     Absence in the Netherlands action programme of any
    —    Article 29d of the new version defines the person                   provisions relating to the minimum capacity, as pre-
         having the duty to notify as being in future the                    scribed by the directive, of storage vessels for livestock
         ‘marketing authorisation holder’ rather than, as                    manure (Article 5(4)(a) in conjunction with point 1(2) of
         previously, ‘the person responsible for placing the                 Annex III to the directive);
         medicinal product on the market’. As a result, a duty
         to notify will no longer be imposed on potential              —     Absence in the Netherlands action programme of any
         licensees of the marketing authorisation holder or on               mandatory provisions concerning the limitation of the
         parallel importers, who, together with the original                 land application of fertilisers, taking into account the
         vendor of the medicinal product, are regarded in the                climatic conditions, rainfall and irrigation (Article 5(4)(a)
         Member State concerned as being the persons                         in conjunction with point 1(3)(b) of Annex III to the
         responsible for placing the product on the market.                  directive);


title: Case T-283/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Advansa and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/66

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Advansa and Others v Commission
   (Case T-283/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/81)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Advansa GmbH (Hamm, Germany); Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany); Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany); Cabb GmbH (Gersthofen, Germany); CBW Chemie GmbH Bitterfeld-Wolfen (Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany); CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG (Brunsbüttel, Germany); Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); Dow Olefinverbund GmbH (Schkopau, Germany); Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH (Stade, Germany); Dralon GmbH (Dormagen, Germany); Ems-Chemie (Neumünster) GmbH & Co. KG (Neumünster, Germany); Hahl Filaments GmbH (Munderkingen, Germany); ISP Marl GmbH (Marl, Germany); Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen (Sulzbach, Germany); Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter (Sulzbach); Nabaltec AG (Schwandorf, Germany); Siltronic AG (Munich, Germany); Trevira GmbH (Bobingen, Germany); Wacker Chemie AG (Munich); and Westfalen Industriegase GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, L. Petersen, F.-A. Wesche, N. Wimmer and T. Woltering, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, Cabb GmbH, CBW Chemie GmbH Bitterfeld-Wolfen, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dralon GmbH, Ems-Chemie (Neumünster) GmbH & Co. KG, Hahl Filaments GmbH, ISP Marl GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG, Trevira GmbH, Wacker Chemie AG and Westfalen Industriegase GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-338/02: Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga against Council of the European Union

text:
C 7/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
selection board in competition COM/R/A/2000 refusing to
include her name on the reserve list.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant relies on four pleas             The present action seeks the annulment of the decision by
in law. First, she alleges breach of the principle of non-               which the applicant was notified of her non-admission to the
discrimination, breach of essential procedural requirements,             tests in competition COM/A/10/01 because she was beyond
infringement of the rules governing the organisation of tests            the age-limit provided for in the notice of competition.
and infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations. In the applicant’s view, the selection board was
not composed of a stable number of members and did not                   The pleas in law and main arguments have previously been
carry out its work impartially.                                          put forward in T-219/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission ( 1).
The applicant in her second plea in law alleges infringement
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 C 233, p. 30.
of the competition notice.
Third, she alleges breach of the interest of the service,
infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants of the European Communities and manifest
error of assessment.
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of equal           Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI
treatment between men and women, breach of the equal                     association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga
opportunity policy, breach of positive actions and breach of                        against Council of the European Union
the principle according to which the administration is bound
by the acts which it adopts.
                                                                                (Case T-338/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-337/02)                                  Communities on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association,
                                                                         Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga, established in
                          (2003/C 7/47)                                  Baiona (France) and in Donostia (Spain), Araitz Zubimendi
                                                                         Izaga, residing in Hernani (Spain), and Aritza Galarraga,
                                                                         residing in Senpere (France), represented by Didier Rouget,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        avocat.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz                    —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
Herrera, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-                    EUR 1 000 000 to the SEGI association and
Gallardo and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.                                   EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz
                                                                               Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                               rate of 4,5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission refusing Olga                       judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
      Lutz’s application to take part in COM/A/10/01; and                      payment is effected;
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 7/25
—     order the defendant to bear their own costs and to pay             Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona
      those incurred by the applicants.                                  Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-341/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 7/49)
SEGI and its two representatives are seeking compensation for
the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the abovementioned                              (Language of the case: Italian)
association’s name having been included in the list of terrorist
persons, groups and bodies, pursuant to Common Position
2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on 27 December 2001, confirmed
by Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (2) adopted on
2 May 2001, and Council Common Position 2002/940/
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
CFSP (3) adopted on 17 June 2002.
                                                                         the European Communities on 14 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Regiona Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the
common position, which is the subject-matter of the action, is
vitiated by a number of irregularities, namely breach of a               The applicant claims that the Court should:
number of fundamental rights, liberties and principles, protect-
ed under the Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, such as the right to the presumption of              —     annul the Commission’s decision No 109206 of 5 Sep-
innocence, the right to a proper hearing, in so far as there is                tember 2002 on the closure of the major project ‘Messina-
no means of challenging the common position in question                        Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 — ARINCO
through the courts, the right to freedom of speech, in particular              No 93.IT.16.009) and order the Commission of the
so far as concerns the right to self-determination and the                     European Communities to pay the costs
search for a solution to the Basque conflict by negotiation, and
the right to privacy.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also claim that the procedure for the adoption
of Decision 2001/931/CFSP was unlawful in that on
27 December 2001 the Council adopted four measures to
combat terrorism and to define the list of terrorist persons,            The contested decision, which concerns the major project
groups and bodies. However, those four measures are closely              ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ partly financed by contributions
linked and it is impossible to understand one without know-              from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), closed
ledge of the other three. Moreover, it would appear that                 the intervention procedure and decided that the costs of the
the European Parliament was consulted only in relation to                instalments which had been completed by the date of adoption
Regulation No 2580/2001 and not the other measures,                      of the decision were eligible. Consequently the decision
in particular Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The latter                  concluded that there would be a settlement of the ERDF
measures, although they are, in formal terms, common                     contribution by unblocking EUR 26 378 246 with a balance
positions, contain provisions which fall within the scope of             to be recovered of EUR 58 036 177.
JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) or which reflect framework
decisions or positions which should have been the subject
of consultation with the European Parliament, pursuant to
Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.                           In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the
                                                                         following arguments:
The applicants also allege breach of the rights of the defence           —     The contested decision is ultra vires in so far as it appears
and of the obligation to provide reasons.                                      to have been issued by the Director General for Regional
                                                                               Policy instead of by the Commission itself. Additionally,
                                                                               in the decisions of 22 December 1993 and 28 July 1995
                                                                               adopted earlier in the course of the project, the deadline
( 1) OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 93.                                           by which costs had to have been incurred in order to be
( 2) OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.                                             eligible for cofinancing was fixed as 31 December 1997,
( 3) OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.                                            whereas in the contested decision the eligibility of costs
                                                                               was for the first time correlated to the functionality,
                                                                               within a reasonable period of time, of the works in
                                                                               respect of which the costs were incurred.


title: Case T-259/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/48

         Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
   (Case T-259/15)
   (2015/C 236/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken on an unknown date by the European Parliament to award the public works contract concerning the ‘extension and upgrading project for the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ Lot 73 (energy centre), reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD (composed of the companies Mersch et Schmitz Production Sàrl and Energolux S.A.) and, accordingly, not to award the contract to the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the principle of transparency, in so far as a reading of the grounds for the rejection of the applicants’ bid and the extracts from the decision awarding the contract to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD does not enable it to be ascertained whether those tenderers satisfied the requirements of qualitative selection laid down in the contract documents.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

         The applicants submit that the European Parliament committed a manifest error of assessment in awarding the contract in question to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD and that the selection criteria were not applied in accordance with the tender specifications and in compliance with the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination required under Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1).

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the court of first instance 18 February2004 in Case T-10/03: Jean-Pierre Koubi v Office for Harmonisationin the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark— Application for Community word mark CONFORFLEX — Earlier national word andfigurative marks FLEX — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/62

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   18 February 2004
   in Case T-10/03: Jean-Pierre Koubi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark CONFORFLEX - Earlier national word and figurative marks FLEX - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 106/125)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-10/03, Jean-Pierre Koubi, residing in Marseilles (France), represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and S. Pétrequin); the other party to the proceedings being: Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere, SA (Flabesa), established in Madrid (Spain), represented by I. Valdelomar, lawyer: Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2002 (Case R 542/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Koubi and Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere, SA (Flabesa), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/97/EC — Implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes — Failure to transpose)

text:
5.5.2001                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 134/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                              Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
                                                                              court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                  delle Piacentine and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                                Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA)
                         of 14 December 2000
                                                                                (Case C-489/00)
in Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                                                     (2001/C 134/05)
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/97/EC —
                                                                              European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
Implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
                                                                              Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
and women in occupational social security schemes — Failure
                                                                              the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
                               to transpose)
                                                                              ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte delle Piacentine
                                                                              and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
                             (2001/C 134/04)                                  Agricolo (AIMA) on the following questions:
                                                                              (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
                       (Language of the case: Greek)                               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                                judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
                     in the European Court Reports)                                quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
In Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communities                      If not,
(Agents: D. Gouloussis and A. Aresu) v Hellenic Republic
(Agents: S. Vodina and N. Dafniou) — application for a
                                                                              (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
declaration that, by failing to bring into force, alternatively
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the
                                                                                1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive
                                                                                Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive
                                                                                provide that derogations may be made from the periods
86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                                prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
treatment for men and women in occupational social security
                                                                                individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20), the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court
                                                                                provisions?
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Admin-                  (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 Decem-                     as meaning that the application of the system introduced
ber 2000, in which it:                                                             by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
                                                                                notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
                                                                                ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,            its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             which that State is guaranteed?
      comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December
      1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation
      of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                (4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
      occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic Republic has              interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                       individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
                                                                                or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
                                                                                exclude individual notification to those producers?
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                     (2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2003 in Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx v Commission of the European Communities (Open competition — Failure to award the minimum number of points required for the oral test — Omission from the reserve list — Reasons — Consistency between the complaint and the application — Application unfounded in part and inadmissible in part)

text:
C 289/24                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          29.11.2003
3.    Reserves the costs, including those incurred by the intervener.        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 1 August 2003
                                                                             in Case T-378/02 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing
                                                                             up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional
                                                                                suspension)
                       of 9 September 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 289/52)
in Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx v Commission of the                                               (Language of the case: German)
                   European Communities (1)
(Open competition — Failure to award the minimum number                      In Case T-378/02 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
of points required for the oral test — Omission from the                     established at Ilmenau, (Germany), represented by G. Schohe
reserve list — Reasons — Consistency between the complaint                   and C. Arhold, lawyers, with an address for service in
and the application — Application unfounded in part and
                                                                             Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                        inadmissible in part)                                ties (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by
                                                                             Schott Glas, established at Mainz (Germany), represented by
                                                                             U. Soltész, lawyer — application for suspension of the
                           (2003/C 289/51)                                   operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2002) 2147
                                                                             final on State aid by Germany in favour of Technische
                                                                             Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, the President of the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: French)                           Instance has made an order on 1 August 2003 in which he:
                                                                             1.    Suspends the operation, until 31 October 2003, of Article 2
                                                                                of Commission Decision C (2002) 2147 final on State aid
                                                                                C 44/2001 granted by Germany in favour of Technische
In Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx, a member of the temporary                          Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,                  2.    Makes that suspension of operation subject to the following
É. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers, with an address for                             conditions: first, that before 30 September 2003 at the latest
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                          the applicant should repay to the Thüringer Aufbaubank the
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios) —                          sum of EUR ... and within a week of making that repayment
application for annulment of the decision of the selection                         and by 7 October 2003 at the latest should lodge at the
board in competition COM/B/1/00 awarding the applicant a                           Registry of the Court of First Instance and at the Commission
mark lower than the minimum required and not entering him                          written proof of that repayment; second, that the first-priority
on the reserve list — the Court of First Instance (Third                           mortgage security granted to the Thüringer Aufbaubank over
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and                         the land on which the fourth furnace stands should be released
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            and re-granted to the Bundesanstalt für Vereinigungsbedingte
9 September 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                       Sonderaufgaben by 10 October 2003 at the latest, in order to
                                                                                guarantee the latter’s right to repayment of the balance of the
                                                                                sale price under asset deal 1; third, that by 10 October 2003
1.    The application is dismissed;                                                at the latest Mr Geiß should lodge security, similar to the
                                                                                personal surety jointly and severally liable with the principal
                                                                                debtor lodged on 3 March 1998 by him in respect of the
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs.                                   repayment of the loan made by the Thüringer Aufbaubank, in
                                                                                favour of the Bundesanstalt für Vereinigungsbedingte Son-
                                                                                deraufgaben in respect of the balance of the sale price under
                                                                                asset deal 1; fourth, that by 17 October 2003 at the latest
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.02.
                                                                                written proof of the novation of the securities, required in
                                                                                accordance with the second and third conditions set out above,
                                                                                should be lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance
                                                                                and at the Commission;


title: Case C-491/11 P: Order of the Court of 27 June 2012 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH v European Commission (Appeals — Common Agricultural Policy — Purchase of maize from the Hungarian intervention agency — Insufficient stocks — Alleged failure by the Commission in its obligation to conduct checks — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/20

         Order of the Court of 27 June 2012 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-491/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Common Agricultural Policy - Purchase of maize from the Hungarian intervention agency - Insufficient stocks - Alleged failure by the Commission in its obligation to conduct checks - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 366/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH (represented by: G. Lehner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 in Case T-451/10 Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission, by which that Court dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law the action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s failure to check the conditions governing the implementation of standing invitations to tender for the resale on the Community market of cereals, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.01.2012.


title: Action brought on 28 October 1996 by Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European Union (Case T-172/96)

text:
No C 9/ 18            1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11 . 1 . 97
the basis of correct figures and, on the other hand, from               Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
the fact that the Commission is using different figures to              Brognieri against the Commission of the European
calculate reference quantities for 1995 and 1996 .                                                 Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 74/96 )
(!) OJ No L 193 , 3 . 8 . 1996 , p . 15 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/33 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 28 October 1996 by Yannick
Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                 Union                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 20 September
                          ( Case T-l 72/96 )
                                                                        1996 by Ernesto Brognieri , residing at Barasso ( Italy ),
                             ( 97/C 9/32 )                              represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of
                (Language of the case: French)                          Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 28 October 1996 by Yannick Chevalier
Delanoue, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                      — annul the decision of 30 November 1995 concerning
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at                    the award of shiftwork allowance, in compliance with
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange .                                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             on 8 June 1995 in case T-583/93 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Council of 29 January 1996                  — order all sums due thereunder to be paid to the
    not to increase his annual leave by additional                           applicant in whole, both principal and default interest,
    travelling time,                                                         the amount of the principal being assessed, without
                                                                             prejudice, in particular to increases during the course
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     of the proceedings, at the sum of Lit 24 997 792, with
                                                                             interest to be assessed at the rate of 8 % per annum,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official at the Council whose place of                — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
origin was fixed as Washington, states that he is
challenging the decision whereby the appointing authority
refuses to add to the duration of the annual leave to                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which he is entitled travelling time calculated by taking
into account the needs and, in particular, the actual                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-583/93 ,
duration and conditions of the journey as well as the                   settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 , and in Case T-148/96,
period of adjustment/recovery resulting from the time                   still pending, challenges the decision of the appointing
difference .
                                                                        authority of 30 November 1995 awarding him the
                                                                        shiftwork allowance            from   1   March   1993     until
He considers that the travelling time of two days granted               31 December 1993 .
to him in reliance on the rules generally applied to
officials whose place of origin is outwith Europe covers
only the duration of the journey, but takes no account of               He complains in particular that the decision ignores the
the time to recover from the fatigue to which such a                    fact that the decision regularizing his position was not
journey gives rise. In the view of the applicant, this means            taken until 28 November 1995 and that the operative part
that the appointing authority treats officials whose place              of the said judgment of 8 June 1995 required the payment
of origin is situated outwith Europe differently from those             of sums intended to cover the period between 1 March
whose place of origin is situated within Europe and who                 1993 and the date on which the decision regularizing his
are entitled, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex V to                position was adopted . That date cannot refer to the date
the Staff Regulations, to an increase of their holiday in               of a decision nearly two years before the judgment.
order to take account of the strain of the journey
notwithstanding the fact that they are not faced with the
problem of recovering from the effects of jet-lag. He                   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement
concludes that the contested decision was adopted in                    of Articles 26 and 56a of the Staff Regulations, and
breach of the principle of equal treatment and non                     Articles 176 and 179 of the Treaty of Rome, and
discrimination as well as of Article 7 ( 5 ) of Annex V to              infringement of the principle of res judicata.
the Staff Regulations .


title: Case C-18/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Napoli by order of that court of 15 July 2004 in Salus S.p.A v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Napoli by order of that court of 15 July 2004 in Salus S.p.A v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4
   (Case C-18/05)
   (2005/C 93/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Napoli (Italy) of 15 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 20 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Salus S.p.A and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4 on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the exemption under Article 13B(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 refer to input VAT paid on the acquisition of goods or services used for exempted activities or rather to cases in which a taxable person who has acquired goods intended for such activities subsequently sells those goods to other taxable persons?

               2.

               Is that provision sufficiently precise and unconditional to be directly effective in the national legal system?

               3.

               For the purposes of the direct applicability of the directive, what is the effect of the requirement in the first paragraph of Article 13B whereby, in implementing Article 13B(c), Member States are to lay down conditions for 'preventing any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.


title: Case T-523/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/24

         Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
   (Case T-523/11)
   2011/C 355/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maxima Grupė, UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Maximo, SL (Oyón, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2011 in case R 1584/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MAXIMA PREMIUM’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32 AND 33 — Community trade mark application No 6981443

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6642284, of the word mark ‘MAXIMO’, for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal found that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking into account all the relevant aspects of the present case, including inherently low distinctive character of ‘MAXIMO/MAXIMA’, similarity of the signs, and the fact that the relevant public is highly attentive and well informed.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Industrial Tribunal, Manchester, by decision of that court of 15 October 1996 in the case of M. Boyle, A. Taylor, J. Mansley, A. Khan, S. Moores and G. Atkinson and the Equal Opportunities Commission (Case C-411/96)

text:
No C 54/ 16             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                              22 . 2 . 97
equivalent effect to a customs duty by a true internal tax                       to repay such maternity pay if she does not return to
which is non-discriminatory and thus complies with both                          work for one month on the conclusion of maternity
the letter and the spirit of Article 95 of the Treaty, having                    leav.e .
regard, in particular, to the powers of exemption which it
confers on the regional authorities, giving rise, in La
                                                                         2 . A condition that where a woman, who is absent on
Reunion, to the decision of the Regional Council of
1 1 December 1 992 ?                                                             paid sick leave with a pregnancy related illness, gives
                                                                                birth during such absence, her maternity leave may be
                                                                                backdated to the later date of either six weeks before
(') Of No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 46 .
                                                                                the expected week of child birth or when the sickness
                                                                                leave began .
                                                                         3 . A prohibition on a woman , who is unfit for work for
                                                                                any reason whilst on maternity leave, from taking paid
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Industrial                        sick leave, unless she elects to return to work and
Tribunal, Manchester, by decision of that court of                               terminate her maternity leave .
15 October 1996 in the case of M. Boyle, A. Taylor, J.
Mansley, A. Khan, S. Moores and G. Atkinson and the
              Equal Opportunities Commission                             4 . A condition limiting the time during which annual
                         ( Case C-411 /96 )                                      leave accrues to the statutory minimum period of 14
                                                                                weeks maternity leave and accordingly excluding any
                            ( 97/C 54/23 )
                                                                                other period of maternity leave .
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has
received a reference for a preliminary ruling made by a                  5 . A condition limiting the time in which pensionable
decision   of the      Industrial      Tribunal , Manchester,   of              service accrues during maternity leave to when the
15 October 1996 , in the proceedings between M. Boyle,                          woman is in receipt of contractual or statutory
A. Taylor, J. Mansley, A. Khan, S. Moores and G.                                maternity pay and accordingly excluding any period of
Atkinson and the Equal Opportunities Commission which                           unpaid maternity leave .
was lodged at the Court Registry on 23 December 1996
on the following questions :                                             (') Council Directive 75/ 1 17/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                                                                               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
In circumstances such as those of the present cases , do any                   the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
of the following matters infringe the prohibition of unfair                    women ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).
and/or unfavourable treatment of women                 because of        ( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
pregnancy, child birth , maternity and/or sickness in                          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
relation thereto under Community law ( in particular                           and women as regards access to employment, vocational
                                                                               training and promotion , and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 ,
Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and/or Council                               14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).
Directives 75/ 1 17/EEC ('), and/or 76/207/EEC ( 2 ) and/or              ( ! ) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
92/ 85/EEC ) (■'):                                                             introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
                                                                               safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers
1 . A condition that maternity pay, beyond the statutory                       who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding ( 10th
    maternity pay, is paid only if the woman states that                       individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of
    she intends to return to work and agrees to be liable                      Directive 89/39 1 /EEC ( OJ No L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992 , p. 1 ).


title: Case C-238/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli and Armagan Candan v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/18

         Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli and Armagan Candan v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-238/07 P)
   (2007/C 183/30)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested Order

               —

               annul the Respondent's decision of 5 May 2004

               —

               order the Respondent to pay the costs of this appeal

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant maintains that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

               The Court of First Instance erred in law in failing to seek out evidence by means of measures of instruction or inquiry for the opening of the archives of not only EPSO but also of the European Community Representation in Cyprus and/or the Commission in general;

               As a result of the CFI's omission, the Respondents did not disclose all relevant correspondence between the European Community Representation in Cyprus and/or the Commission and/or EPSO. Therefore the appellant's rights regarding a fair hearing were infringed during the proceedings before the CFI.


title: Case T-657/14: Action brought on 12 September 2014  — Spain v Commission

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/22

         Action brought on 12 September 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-657/14)
   2014/C 380/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 27 June 2014 interrupting the payment deadline in respect of the statement of expenditure and applications for payment No 21 in relation to the operational programme for research, development and innovation, Technology Fund-ERDF, sent by Spain on 26 December 2013, and initiating the suspension procedure, and

               —

               order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] and initiating the suspension procedure infringed Article 87(2), in conjunction with Articles 91 and 92 of Council Regulation 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard, that the period referred to in Article 87(2) is a limitation period that prevents the Commission from adopting a decision interrupting the payment deadline once the two month period has expired and, therefore, does not permit a suspension of payments procedure to be initiated either.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] and initiating the suspension procedure was adopted outside the period set by EU law and was in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration. It had a detrimental budgetary and financial impact on the Kingdom of Spain, which trusted in good faith that it would obtain payment within the prescribed period.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 91(1)(a) of Regulation 1083/2006 through non-compliance with the rules laid down in that regulation for that decision to be validly adopted.

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard, that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] was not based on an audit report, as required by the provision in question, but on a mere draft, which cannot be regarded as a definitive document capable of substantiating a decision interrupting [the payment deadline]. Furthermore, the draft in question does not contain evidence, still less proof, of serious deficiencies in the management and control system.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
C 28/10                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                           di Genova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                       of 16 November 2000                                                         (Case C-388/00)
in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v                                                  (2001/C 28/18)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the                      European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circum-                         (District Court), Genoa, of 23 October 2000, received at the
                                stances)                                   Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on
                            (2001/C 28/17)                                 the following questions:
                                                                           (1) Does Community law, in the light also of its fundamental
                   (Language of the case: German)                               principles for which there is no primary textual source,
                                                                                preclude legislation and/or national administrative prac-
                                                                                tice which — in the context of a system where matters
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          concerning conformity assessment procedures for the
                    in the European Court Reports)                              purposes of placing radio equipment on the market and
                                                                                putting such equipment into service have been delegated
In Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG,                               to the administrative authorities, to be decided merely at
established in Mayen, Germany, represented by T. Jestaedt, of                   their discretion — precludes economic operators from
the Brussels Bar and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,                     importing, marketing or holding in stock, with a view to
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    selling, radio equipment that has not undergone national
P. Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against the                           type-approval, and which does not admit other forms of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                         evidence, equally reliable but less burdensome to obtain,
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of                            to prove that such equipment is in conformity with
14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94 Weig v Commission [1998]                           requirements concerning the proper use of the radio
ECR II-1235, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 frequencies authorised under national law?
party to the proceedings being, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal assisted by D. Schroeder) — the                (2) Does Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                    and of the Council of 9 March 1999 confer on individuals
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                        rights upon which they may rely before the national
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     courts, where the Directive itself has not been formally
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November                        transposed into national law and the deadline for such
2000, in which it:                                                              transposition has already expired? If that question is
                                                                                answered in the affirmative, is it compatible with
1.    Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of               Article 7(2)) of Directive 1999/5/EC to maintain in force
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94               legislation and/or administrative practice which, after
      Weig v Commission;                                                        8 April 2000, prohibits the marketing and/or the putting
                                                                                into service of radio equipment which does not bear
2.    Fixes at EUR 1 900 000 the amount of the fine to be imposed               the national type-approval stamp, where it has been
      on Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG by Article 3 of Commission                confirmed that such equipment makes efficient and
      Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding               proper use of the radio frequencies authorised under
      under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Car-                     national law, or where it is easy to verify that this is the
      tonboard);                                                                case?
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                               (3) On a proper construction of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                No 3052/95/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the
4.    Orders Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs                 Council of 13 December 1995, how is the term ‘the
      and to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Commission of the               measure’ to be interpreted and does that term cover the
      European Community before the Court of Justice;                           situation where the administrative authorities, having
                                                                                seized a particular model or a particular type of product
5.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear                 which is lawfully marketed in another Member State,
      one-third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.                   continue to withhold that model or product after it has
                                                                                been ascertained by the public authorities responsible for
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                      technical checks that the good in question is in conform-
                                                                                ity with both national and Community legislation, that is
                                                                                to say, after the evidential purposes justifying the initial
                                                                                seizure have been served?