title: Action brought on 27 September 1995 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-308/95)

text:
11 . 11 . 95         fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 299/ 13
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Mons, of 21 September                 provisions necessary to comply with the directives referred
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                     to in the conclusions of the Commission .
26 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Universite Catholique de Louvain ( Catholic University of              (') Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing
Louvain ) v. Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez on the                     Community measures for the control of avian influenza ( OJ No
following questions :                                                        L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November              1990
'Do supplementary family allowances which are calculated                     concerning public health and animal health problems affecting
                                                                             the production and placing on the market of rabbit meat and
on a flat-rate basis according to the number of children                     farmed game meat ( OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 41 ).
concerned and which an individual employer pays to his
employees , either under the terms of a collective labour
agreement or on a voluntary, unilateral basis, constitute pay
within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?
In the event that the first question is answered in the                Action brought on 27 September 1995 by the Kingdom of
affirmative, if an employer infringes the rule of equal                the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
treatment for men and women contained in that provision ,                                             Communities
are the employees affected entitled under Community law                                            ( Case C-308/95 )
to claim payment of arrears of supplementary family
allowances as from 8 April 1976 , in order to ensure that the                                        ( 95/C 299/22 )
period in respect of which they may bring an action is the
same as that for a comparable right of action under Belgian            An action against the Commission of the European
law ?'                                                                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 27 September 1995 by the
                                                                       Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J. S. van der
                                                                       Oosterkamp and M. A. Fierstra, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands
                                                                       Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo .
Action brought on 26 September 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United                         The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court
                             Kingdom                                   should :
                        ( Case C-306/95 )
                          ( 95/C 299/21 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 28 July 1995
                                                                             concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
                                                                             projects co-financed prior to 1989 by the European
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before                       Regional Development Fund,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1995 by the Commission of the European                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.                                              — Infringement of the Treaty or of certain rules for its
                                                                              implementation and/or infringement of essential
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                  procedural requirements, concerning in particular the
                                                                              provision of a statement of reasons for the decision
1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the measures                  ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), and/or breach of general
     necessary to comply with Council Directives                              principles of Community law: the letter of 28 July 1995
     92/40/EEC (') and 91 /495/EEC ( 2 ) in Northern Ireland,                 from the Commissioner responsible for regional policy
     or in the alternative by failing to inform the Commission                constitutes the final act in the decision-making process,
     forthwith thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to                      by which the Commission reached a definitive decision
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives and in                     concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
     particular Article 22 thereof and under the Treaty                       the Netherlands infrastructure projects decided on
     establishing the European Community;                                     by the Commission before 1 January 1989 under the
                                                                              European Regional Development Fund ( ERDF ). The
2 . order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .                               Commission 's view that the timelimit of 31 March 1995
                                                                              constitutes a final deadline is based on an incorrect, or at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           least incomprehensible, interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall                   amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 4254/88 laying down
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                        provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                     2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                       Fund ( hereinafter 'the 1993 ERDF Regulation'). The
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January                      way in which the Commission has applied Article 12 of
 1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the                           the 1993 ERDF Regulation in the contested decision,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 299/ 14           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
   without referring to requests for final payment                    ( Administrative Court for Customs and Excise ) of
   submitted after 31 March 1995 , is contrary to general             21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   principles of Community law, in particular :                       Registry on 29 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise ,
   — the principle of the duty to act in good faith/principle         Hoofddorp , on the following question :
       of ( regional ) partnership ( Article 5 of the EC Treaty ):
       the Commission has failed to arrive at a definitive
                                                                      Is Part Four of the EEC Treaty , in particular Articles 1 32 (1 ),
       settlement of accounts in respect of the projects by            133 ( 1 ) and 134 , to be interpreted — regardless of any
       cooperating in good faith and engaging in effective            distinction between goods originating in the OCT and
       consultations with the Netherlands Government ,                goods originating in third countries , and thus by way of
       and has thus unlawfully omitted to take into                   derogation from Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (') and
       consideration requests for final payment submitted             91 / 1 10/EEC ( 2 ) — as meaning that no customs duties were
       as a precautionary measure . In so acting, the                 payable on 25 June 1991 on goods which , immediately
       Commission is contravening the objectives of the               before being imported into the Community, were in free
       ERDF ,                                                         circulation in an OCT country ?
   — the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                      (') OJ No L 175 , 1986 , p . 1 .
       expectations : in view of the fact that Article 1 2 of the     (-) OJ No L 58 , 1991 , p . 27 .
        1993 ERDF Regulation in any event infringes
       acquired rights to subsidies by providing that they
       are to cease definitively on 30 September 1995 , and
       in view also of the action taken by the Commission
       in the past, the Netherlands Government was
       justifiably entitled to expect that applications for
       payment submitted after 3 1 March 1 995 but in good                               ORDER OF THE COURT
       time before 30 September 1995 would be taken into                                   of 29 September 1995
       consideration in the final settlement of accounts ,
                                                                      in Case C-2/94 SA : Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA ( ENU )
                                                                             v . Commission of the European Communities ( l )
   — the principle of proportionality : taking all the
       circumstances into account, the Commission could               (Request for authorization to seize assets of the Community
       not reasonably have reached the contested decision                                         in Portugal)
       providing that assistance for projects already                                           ( 95 /C 299/24 )
       completed , amounting to Fl 15 606 552 , was no
       longer to be payable .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— In so far as the Commission 's interpretation of the
   aforementioned provision is correct, and the timelimit of          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   31 March 1995 which it lays down is justified , the                           published in the European Court Reports)
   Commission has unlawfully failed ( contrary , at least , to
   Article 12 of the 1993 ERDF Regulation and the                     In Case C-2/94 SA : Empresa Nacional de Uranio SA ( ENU ),
   abovementioned principles of Community law ) to treat              a company incorporated under Portuguese law, whose
   the letter of 21 March 1995 from the Ministry of                   registered office is in Urgeiri<;a , Nelas , represented by
   Economic Affairs as a request for final payment .                  Professor Joao Mota de Campos , of the Lisbon Bar, Rua
   Moreover, the Commission adopted the contested                     Antonio Enes, 16-5 " E, 1000 Lisbon v. Commission of the
   decision without first consulting the Committee of the             European Communities ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and
   Fund . In addition, having regard to the foregoing, the            Jurgen Grunwald ) — application for authorization to seize
   Commission has failed, contrary to Article 1 90 of the FX          assets of the Community in Portugal — the Court,
   Treaty, to provide any or any adequate statement of                composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A.
   reasons for the contested decision .                               Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn , C. Gulmann and P. Jann
                                                                       ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris ,
                                                                      J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and
                                                                       H. Ragnemalm, Judges ; A. La Pergola ; Advocate-General ;
                                                                       R. Grass, Registrar , made an order on 29 September 1 995 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie           which the operative part is as follows :
by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in the case
of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise,                      1 . there is no need to give a decision ;
                            Hoofddorp
                        ( Case C-3 10/95 )                             2 . the parties are to bear their own costs .
                          ( 95 /C 299/23 )
                                                                       (M O J No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tariefcommissie


title: Case T-449/09: Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/56

         Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-449/09)
   2010/C 24/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the Commission to refund the sum of EUR 97 399,55 allegedly receivable and claimed by the Commission pursuant to the contract in its debit note of 6 July 2009 (Ref No 3230906573) which gave rise to the set-off measure of 28 August 2009 (Ref BUDG/C3 D2009 10.5 — 1232), together with interest on late payment at the statutory rate in accordance with Belgian law governing the contract;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) requests the Court to order the Commission to refund the amount receivable (EUR 97 399,55) referred to in debit note No 3230906573 of 6 July 2009, which is allegedly payable by the applicant under the NEMAGENETAG contract relating to a project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development, and which gave rise to a set-off measure dated 28 August 2009, together with interest on late payment.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its application, alleging:

               —

               failure to comply with the criteria for the definition and justification of eligible costs provided for in the NEMAGENETAG contract and with the principle of good faith in the implementation of agreements, thereby limiting, in some cases even depriving the applicant altogether of, the opportunity to adduce evidence of the proper performance of the contract;

               —

               the erroneous assessment of the Provision pour Perte d’Emploi (loss of employment provision; ‘PPE’) in the light of the criteria laid down by Articles II.19.1, II.19.2.c and II.20 of the General Conditions of the NEMAGENETAG contract, in so far as, contrary to its misleading name, PPE is a personnel cost associated with unemployment insurance that is indissociable from eligible personnel costs. By refusing to allow eligible costs to include amounts corresponding to the PPE levied against the pay of temporary CNRS staff involved in the NEMAGENETAG project, the Commission infringed the requirements referred to above.


title: Joined Cases T-325/12 and T-332/12: Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-325/12 and T-332/12) (1)

   2013/C 32/49
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-58/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  — H.A.L.T.E. v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/23

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 — H.A.L.T.E. v Commission
   (Case T-58/06)
   (2006/C 96/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens — H.A.L.T.E. (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J.-L. Lesquins, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, that the Commission has failed in its obligation to act by failing to define its position after having been called upon to do so in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of that Treaty;

               —

               order the Commission to take all measures necessary to comply with the judgment in its entirety;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, an association of companies operating in the parcel service, transport and logistics sector seeks a declaration by the Court that the Commission has failed to act in that the latter refrained from initiating formal investigation proceedings as provided for under Article 88 EC and from ordering interim measures suspending the payment of the aid disputed in a complaint by the applicant relating to restructuring aid granted by the SNCF, a public company wholly owned by the French State, to the goods transport company SCS SERNAM.
   In support of its action for a declaration of failure to act, the applicant relies on arguments that can be grouped together as two pleas as regards their substance.
   The first plea alleges an infringement of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The applicant submits that the fact that a period of over six months elapsed following its first complaint, although the Commission was familiar with the case, because it had previous given decisions the infringement of which formed the subject-matter of the complaint, constitutes an indication of the serious difficulties encountered by the Commission in assessing whether the aid in question was compatible with the common market. The Commission is accordingly obliged, according to the applicant, to initiate the formal investigation proceeding into the aid referred to in the complaint. The applicant furthermore claims that even if the French authorities failed to give notice of the aid this cannot release the Commission from its obligations of due diligence, and that it is obliged to employ its powers of investigation as soon as it comes into possession of information on State measures which could be contrary to the principles of the common market, especially in the context of a complaint directed at an infringement of its previous decision fixing the conditions of compatibility of State aid with the common market (1).
   The second plea alleges an infringement of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88) (2). The applicant claims that the Commission should have ordered interim measures suspending the payment of the aid in that, according to the applicant, one condition of objective urgency was met.

      (1)  The decision in question is the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 relating to State aid put into effect by France in part in favour of the Sernam company, C (2004) 3940 final

      (2)  OJ 2004 L, p. 1, most recently amended by Commission Regulation No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 182, p. 2)


title: Case C-45/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2010 — 1. Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW, 2. Marc Janssens v Belgian State

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2010 — 1. Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW, 2. Marc Janssens v Belgian State
   (Case C-45/10)
   2010/C 100/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicants

               :

               Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW
               Marc Janssens

               Defendant

               :

               Belgian State

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second subparagraph of Article 17 of Regulation 998/2003/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC and the articles and annexes of Commission Decision 2003/803/EC (2) of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets preclude a national legislative measure which also uses the model of the European pet passport as proof of the identification and registration of dogs and in so doing makes provision for third parties to make changes regarding the identification of the owner and the animal in Parts I to III of a European pet passport attested by an authorised veterinarian by means of identification stickers which are superimposed on the previous identification details?

               2.

               Are national provisions which also use the model of the European pet passport, as contained in Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets, as proof of the identification and registration of dogs and in so doing make provision for third parties to make changes regarding the identification of the owner and the animal in Parts I to III of such a passport by means of identification stickers, technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, which under Article 8 of that directive must be communicated to the European Commission before they are enacted?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 146, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 312, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.


title: Case C-462/04: Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/30

         Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic
   (Case C-462/04)
   (2005/C 6/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Eugenio de March and Carmel O'Reilly, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC (1) of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, and by failing in any event to give the Commission notice thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition expired on 2 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 149 of 2.6.2001, p. 34.


title: Case T-492/09: Action brought on 7 December 2009 — MEDA Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/44

         Action brought on 7 December 2009 — MEDA Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)
   (Case T-492/09)
   2010/C 37/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co KG (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 29 September 2009 in appeal proceedings R 1386/2007-4 concerning the objection lodged on the basis of the German trade mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ against the European part of the international registration 845 934‘ALLERNIL’;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for extension of protection: Nycomed GmbH

      Trade mark for which an extension of protection is sought: the word mark ‘ALLERNIL’ for goods in Class 5 (international registration No 845 934, naming the European Community)

      Proprietor of the mark cited in opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark cited in opposition: the German word mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the principles of trade mark law relating to the likelihood of confusion were not correctly applied;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 owing to deficiencies in the reasoning of the contested decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Joined Cases T-226/09 and T-230/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — British Telecommunications and BT Pension Scheme Trustees v Commission (State aid — Partial exemption from the obligation to contribute to the Pension Protection Fund — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Advantage — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Putting into effect of the aid)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — British Telecommunications and BT Pension Scheme Trustees v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-226/09 and T-230/09) (1)

   (State aid - Partial exemption from the obligation to contribute to the Pension Protection Fund - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Putting into effect of the aid)
   2013/C 325/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: British Telecommunications (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Robert, M. Newhouse and T. Castorina, Solicitors, and by J. Holmes, Barrister, and H. Legge QC) (Case T-226/09) and BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd (London) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers) (Case T-230/09)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/703/EC of 11 February 2009 concerning the State aid C-55/2007 (ex NN 63/07, CP 106/06) implemented by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Public guarantee in favour of [British Telecommunications] (OJ 2009 L 242, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               In Case T-226/09, orders British Telecommunications plc to pay the costs;

               3.

               In Case T-230/09, orders BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case F-99/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/67

      Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-99/11)
      (2012/C 25/128)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of salary arrears for the period from 1 June 2005 to 21 July 2010.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

                  —

                  annul the decision issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission, rejecting — howsoever and whether in whole or in part — the claims set out in the application of 20 August 2010, sent to the appointing authority on 20 August 2010;

                  —

                  annul, quatenus opus est, Note Ares(2011)217354 as registered on 28 February 2011 and received by the applicant on 6 April 2011 at the earliest;

                  —

                  annul the decision issued by the Commission rejecting, howsoever, the claims set out in the complaint of 24 February 2011;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-456/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Sea Handling v Commission

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/10

         Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Sea Handling v Commission
   (Case T-456/13)
   2013/C 298/17
   Language of the procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sea Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, by which the Commission refused to grant SEA Handling SpA access to the documents sought by the request of 27 February 2013;

               —

               direct the Commission to allow the applicant to have sight of the requested documents;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision refusing to grant that company access to the documents in the Commission’s possession relating to the administrative procedure which had culminated in the adoption of the Commission decision of 19 December 2012 concerning the capital injections made by SEA SpA to SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 — Italy/SEA Handling).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: breach of procedural rules.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission has infringed Articles 7(1) and (3) and 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as well as Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since (i) the procedure which culminated in the contested decision was characterised by periods during which communication ceased without explanation and by inadequately explained postponements and (ii) the failure to meet deadlines impacted on the applicant’s rights of defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest error of assessment and by a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as it is presumed that granting access to the documents would adversely affect the Commission’s investigations, as well as those investigations which have already come to a close, but no specific information is given as to how exactly those investigations would be adversely affected.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest error of assessment and by a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the finding is made in that decision that granting access to the documents would adversely affect the commercial interests of the complainant, but no explanation is given as to what those interests might be, thereby undermining the State aid review procedure by equating private interests with the public interest in the proper conduct of investigations and interpreting liberally the interests protected by Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and breach of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the contested decision is also vitiated by the failure to consider the possibility of granting the applicant partial access to the requested documents.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and breach of the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the contested decision is also vitiated by the failure to distinguish between the exceptions applied and the public interest. In particular, the Commission refused access to the documents without taking into consideration the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents, and without calculating the actual impact that such a disclosure would have on the commercial interests of third parties and on the investigations protected under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.


title: Action brought on 20 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-47/98)

text:
11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 113/9
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        103/EC, expired on 23 October 1995 without Belgium
                                                                   having brought into force the necessary provisions.
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to
    Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December                (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
    1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1998 and
    certain conditions under which they may be fished (1),
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of
                                                                   21 January 1998 in the case of Modelo SGPS SA against
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                           Director-Geral dos Registos e Notariado
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                                 (Case C-56/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/22)
(1) OJ L 12, 19.1.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
                                                                   Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)
                                                                   of 21 January 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 24 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
Action brought on 20 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   the case of Modelo SGPS against Director-Geral dos
of the European Communities against the the Kingdom of
                                                                   Registos e Notariado on the following questions.
                            Belgium
                        (Case C-47/98)
                         (98/C 113/21)                             1. Is it open to an individual to rely on Article 10 of
                                                                        Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) in his relations with
                                                                        the State where the latter has not transposed that
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                    Directive into its national legal system?
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 20 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as            2. Are the transactions referred to in Article 4(3) of
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Directive 69/335/EEC to be regarded as covered by the
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                       prohibition contained in Article 10 thereof to the
Kirchberg.                                                              effect that the levying is prohibited not only of capital
                                                                        duty but also of any other charge, in whatever form?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   3. Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                be interpreted as precluding that notarial fees for
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations                  drawing up a (legally binding) official document
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply                    attesting to resolutions to increase capital or to amend
    with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November                     articles of association from being varied according to
    1993 concerning the minimum safety and health                       the amount of the capital or the increase therein,
    requirements for work on board fishing vessels (1), the             respectively, rather than according to the cost of the
    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations             service provided?
    under that Directive,
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   4. If so, is it permissible, in the light of Articles 10 and
                                                                        12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC, for the amount of
                                                                        the aforementioned fees manifestly and unreasonably
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     to exceed the actual cost of the specific service
                                                                        provided?
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969, concerning
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                   indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249, 3.10.1969,
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                   p. 25).
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period,
which is laid down in Article 13 of Council Directive 93/


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 11 April 1995 in the case of Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin, intervener: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Case C-171/95)

text:
No C 208/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                               12 . 8 . 95
      with the rules applying to such aid . Furthermore, by             20 December 1963 to claim that he has preserved his
      reason of the first decision, NN 12/91 , PYRSA was in             entitlement to unemployment benefits but where he
      receipt of aid which was considered compatible by the             demonstrates that, on the date of his application, he satisfied
      Commission when it reviewed it a posteriori. The action           the conditions regarding qualifying periods for acquisition
      for annulment brought in Case C- 198/91 Cook v.                   of entitlement to those benefits ?
      Commission had no suspensory effect. In these
      circumstances, it is perfectly logical that the recipient
                                                                        (') OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 . English Special Edition , 1971(11 ),
      undertaking should have based its legitimate                           p . 416 .
      expectations on the compatibility of that aid, bearing in
      mind , moreover, that the Court, in its judgment in Cook,
      did not even state directly that the aid was incompatible
      but rather that it was illegal by reason of the failure to
      initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of
      the Treaty . Thus, it was not until March 1994 that
      PYRSA found itself in receipt of aid which the
      Commission itself had initially declared compatible and           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
      which was now declared incompatible .                             Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 1 1 April
                                                                        1995 in the case of Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin, intervener:
                                                                             Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— In any event, interest should be calculated solely from
      the date of the Commission's decision declaring the aid                                      ( Case C-171/95 )
      previously granted to PYRSA incompatible, that is, from                                        ( 95/C 208/17 )
      14 March 1995 .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(M OJ No C 251 , 27. 9 . 1988 , p . 4 .                                 European Communities by an order of the
( 2 ) OJ No C 326 , 11 . 11 . 1992 , p . 5 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht,                 Erster      Senat        ( Federal
                                                                        Administrative Court, First Senate ) of 11 April 1995 ,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1995 ,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recep Tetik
                                                                        v. Land Berlin, intervener : Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundes
                                                                        verwaltungsgericht, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . is a Turkish seaman, who was employed from 1980 to
                                                                              1988 on maritime vessels of a Member State, a member
                                                                              of the legitimate labour force of that Member State and
                                                                              legally employed there within the meaning of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                           Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC/Turkey
Cassation, Belgium (Third Chamber), by judgment of that                       Association Council on the development of the
court of 15 May 1995 in the case of Office National de                        Association where his employment relationship was
                   l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro                               governed by national law and he paid income tax and
                         ( Case C-l 70/95 )                                   was affiliated to the social security system in that
                                                                              Member State, but the work permit issued to him was
                           ( 95/C 208/16 )
                                                                              limited to working in shipping and did not authorize
                                                                              him to take up residence on shore ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Is it relevant in that connection that under German law
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             that activity is not subject to the requirement of a work
 Cassation ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium ( Third Chamber )                  permit and that, to some extent, special statutory
 of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                    arrangements apply to seamen from the point of view of
 on 6 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office              employment law and social security law ?
 National de l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro on the following
 question:
                                                                         2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
 Must Article 69 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of                     does a Turkish seaman lose his right to be granted a
 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes                   residence permit if he terminates his employment
 to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         relationship voluntarily, and not, for example, on health
 members of their families moving within the                                  grounds , and 11 days later, after the expiry of his
 Community ( ] ), in the version contained in Regulation                      residence permit, applies for a residence permit for work
 ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , be construed in the sense               on shore and after the refusal to grant the permit is
 that the requirement that an unemployed person should                         unemployed ?
 have been employed for at least three months since his
 return to Belgium is applicable where the unemployed
 person does not rely on Article 123 of the Royal Decree of


title: Joined Cases C-313/15 and C-530/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris, Conseil d’État — France) — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS and Others (C-313/15), Melitta France SAS and Others v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (C-530/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Article 3 — Packaging and packaging waste — Definition — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound (‘Roll cores’) — Directive 2013/2/EU — Validity — Amendment by the European Commission of the list of examples of packaging set out in Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC — Misinterpretation of the term ‘packaging’ — Misuse of implementing powers)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris, Conseil d’État — France) — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS and Others (C-313/15), Melitta France SAS and Others v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (C-530/15)
   (Joined Cases C-313/15 and C-530/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Article 3 - Packaging and packaging waste - Definition - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound (‘Roll cores’) - Directive 2013/2/EU - Validity - Amendment by the European Commission of the list of examples of packaging set out in Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC - Misinterpretation of the term ‘packaging’ - Misuse of implementing powers))
   (2017/C 014/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Paris, Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      (Case C-313/15)

      Applicant: Eco-Emballages SA

      Defendants: Sphère France SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, SCA Tissue France SAS, Melitta France SAS, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, Wepa France SAS, formerly Wepa Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica SL, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Délipapier SAS, Scamark SAS, CMC France SARL, Schweitzer SAS, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa France SAS, formerly Wepa Lille SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS

      Interveners: Group’Hygiène syndicat professionnel (C-313/15),

      (Case C-350/15)

      Applicants: Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Délipapier SAS, Gopack SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Wepa France SAS, formerly Lucart France, Paul Hartmann SA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, SCA Tissue France SAS, Group’Hygiène syndicat professionnel

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

      Intervener: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS (C-530/15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, as amended by Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that roll cores in the form of rolls, tubes or cylinders, around which flexible material is wound and sold to consumers, constitute ‘packaging’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

      OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 April 1996 in Joined Cases T-551/93, T-231/94, T-232/94, T-233/94 and T-234/94 Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Community financial aid - Application for compensation in the event of non-payment - Application for annulment of decisions withdrawing aid)

text:
1 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 158/ 13
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 24 April 1996                                                      of 24 April 1996
in Joined Cases T-551 /93 , T-231/94 , T-232/94 , T-233/94                      in Case T-6/94 , A. v. European Parliament ( )
and T-234/94 Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA and Others                  (Officials — Unauthorized absence — Remuneration —
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                      Article 60 of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility)
(Community financial aid — Application for compensation                                            ( 96/C 158 /33 )
in the event ofnon-payment — Application for annulment
                  of decisions withdrawing aid)
                            ( 96/C 158 /32 )                                            (Language of the case: Frencb)
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                        In Case T-6/94 A, a former official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                        Catherine Thill-Kamitaki , of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
In Joined Cases T-551 /93 , T-231 /94, T-232/94 , T-233/94              address for service in Luxembourg at her Chambers ,
and T-234/94, Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA, a company                 15 Avenue du Bois, v. European Parliament (Agent: Ezio
with its registered office at Vigo ( Spain ), represented in Case       Perillo ) — application for an order requiring the European
T-551 /93 by Antonio Creus and Xavier Ruiz, both of the                 Parliament to pay to the applicant, pursuant to the fourth
Barcelona Bar, and by José Ramon Garci'a-Gallardo, of the               paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of Officials
Burgos Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at the              of the European Communities , the total due in respect of,
Cuatrecasas Chambers , 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, and in                    first, the salary not paid to her by the European Parliament
Case T-233/94 by Santiago Martinez Lage, Rafael                         for the months of December 1990 , February, March, May,
Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vias Alonso, all of the                June and half of July 1991 , second, the salary not paid to her
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                for the period from 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1992
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, Transacciones                 ( less the partial allowances received by her for that period )
Maritimas SA , Recursos Marinos SA, Makuspesca SA,                      and, third, the allowance to which she considers herself
companies with their registered offices at Vigo ( Spain ),              entitled for leave not taken in 1992 , together with interest
represented by Santiago Martinez Lage, Rafael                           thereon at the rate prescribed by law from the date when
 Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vias Alonso , all of the              each payment fell due until the date of actual payment — the
Madrid Bar, with and address for service in Luxembourg at               Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, against the                   of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
 Francisco Santaolalla, Amparo Alcover and Blanca Vila                  Administrator , for the Registrar , has given a judgment on
 Costa ) — application for, in Case T-551 /93 , compensation            24 April 1996 , in which it:
 for the loss caused to the applicant by the Commission's
 non-payment of the Community financial aid which it had                 1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 granted by its Decision C(89 ) 632/73 of 26 April 1989 ( file
 No ES/545/89/01 ) for the construction of the fishing vessel
 ' Escualo', and , in Cases T-231 /94 , T-232/94 , T-233/94 and         2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
 T-234/94, for the annulment, respectively, of Commission                     those relating to the application for interim measures.
 Decisions C(94 ) 670/ 1 , C(94 ) 670/2 , C(94 ) 670/3 and C(94 )
 670/4, whereby the Commission withdrew Community
                                                                         (') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
 financial aid granted to each of the four applicants for the
 construction of fishing vessels and required three of the
 applicants to repay the amounts already paid — the Court of
 First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 President, P. Lindh and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 24 April 1996 in which it:
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  1 , dismisses the actions for annulment in Cases T-231 /94,                                   of 25 April 1996
       T-232/94 , T-233 /94 and T-234/94 -,                              in Case T-274/94 : Antonio Castellacci v . Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities C )
                                                                         (Officials — Household allowance — Criterion ofresidence
 2 , dismisses the action for damages in Case T-551 /93;
                                                                         — Allowance for a person treated as a dependent child —
                                                                                Recovery of undue payment)
  3 , orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those of                                    ( 96/C 158/34 )
       the interim proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 and OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                         In Case T-274/94 : Antonio Castellacci, an official of the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case C-556/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Societatea Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (CE Oltenia)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Societatea Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (CE Oltenia)
   (Case C-556/15)
   (2016/C 038/32)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

      Defendant and respondent: Societatea Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (CE Oltenia)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 107 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the participation of the Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA in the capital of the project company Hidro Tarnița SA, whose object is to construct and operate the Tarnița-Lăpuștești hydroelectric power station, constitutes State aid to the producers of wind and photovoltaic energy in that the declared aim of the project is to guarantee optimal conditions for the installation of greater capacity in the power stations which produce those types of energy, that is to say: (i) is it a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) can it affect trade between the Member States?

               2.

               If the answer is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification [obligation] laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?


title: Case T-20/08: Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/61

         Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO)
   (Case T-20/08)
   (2008/C 64/98)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               That the decision R 603/2007 — 4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;

               —

               that an order be substituted that the application for restitutio in integrum was brought within the time-limits as prescribed by Article 78(2);

               —

               that the matter be referred back to the Fourth Board of Appeal for them to deal with the substantive issue as to whether all due care was taken to renew the trade mark concerned;

               —

               that the costs be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘DANELECTRO’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 15 — application No 117 937

      Decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division: Refused the request for restitutio in integrum and declared the trade mark as deemed to have been cancelled

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and declared the restitutio in integrum request as deemed not to have been filed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
   The applicant claims that the question of compliance with the two month time-limit set by the abovementioned provision for the filing of the application for renewal of trade mark registrations and payment of the renewal fee was not part of the appeal. Should the Court decide that the Board was entitled to examine this issue, the applicant alternatively argues that the time-limit was calculated in an incorrect fashion.


               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-108/04 (1)

   (2005/C 271/34)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   By order of 3 May 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-108/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia): Divina Cortiñas Yáñez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS).

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-177/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/64

      Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))
      (Case T-177/16)
      (2016/C 211/79)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Mema GmbH l.G. (Terlan, Italy) (represented by: B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

         Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

         Community plant variety right at issue: Braeburn 78 (11078) — Plant variety Application No 2009/0954

         Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 in Case A001/2015

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further decision with the direction to annul the contested decision and order the CPVO to carry out a complementary examination pursuant to Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 (Case A 001/2015);

                  —

                  in the alternative, in the event that an order is not granted in the form of the first and second points, stay these proceedings pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in force from 1 July 2015 (‘the Rules of Procedure’) until a final decision has been made in the proceedings in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 on the cancellation of plant variety rights for reference variety ‘Royal Braeburn’ (Application No 1998/1082; Plant variety No 11960). That decision is preliminary since, depending on the result, the reference variety will disappear or it will follow that Angers-Beaucouzé was and is unsuitable as a test location (see point 12) and therefore whether a complementary examination was necessary or not;

                  —

                  order the CPVO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Misuse of discretion — Infringement of Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94;

                  —

                  Infringement of a provision to be applied in implementing Regulation No 2100/94;

                  —

                  Infringement of Point 57 of the CPVO apple test protocol;

                  —

                  Infringement of Part IV of the CPVO apple test protocol;

                  —

                  Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Right to a hearing;

                  —

                  Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Incomplete statement of reasons.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-470/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/84)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 24 February 2005, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-470/04, Thomas Peyker v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-502/09: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/44

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)
   (Case T-502/09) (1)

   2011/C 347/81
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 51, 27.2.2010.


               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/2

         Taking of the oath by a new Member of the General Court
   2010/C 346/02
   Following his appointment as a Judge at the General Court of the European Union for the period from 26 November 2010 to 31 August 2016 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 18 November 2010, (1) Mr Andrei Popescu took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 November 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 306 of 23.11.2010, p. 76.


title: Case C-105/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-105/05) (1)

   (2006/C 331/44)

      Language of the case: Finnish

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-496/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2017 — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2017 — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln
   (Case C-496/17)
   (2017/C 347/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

      Question referred

               1.

               Is the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (1) of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this provision permits the customs authority to request the applicant to inform it of the tax identification numbers issued by the German Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Federal Central Tax Office) for the purpose of income tax collection and the tax offices responsible for the income tax assessment of the members of the applicant’s supervisory board, its managing directors, heads of department, head of accounts, head of the customs department as well as those individuals responsible for customs matters and those dealing with customs matters employed by the applicant?

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558.


title: Case C-457/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH and Others

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH and Others
   (Case C-457/11)
   2011/C 362/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

      Defendants: Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH

      Questions referred

   The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

               1.

               In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?

               2.

               Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?

               4.

               Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?

               5.

               Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


               18.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 20 December 2016 in the case of Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG
   (Case E-21/16)
   (2017/C 155/05)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 20 December 2016 from the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 20 December 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) preclude a contractual agreement between a legal expenses insurance and an insured person, according to which it is a breach of duty of the insured person, releasing the insurance company from its obligations, if the insured person mandates an attorney to represent his interests, without the consent of the legal expenses insurance, at a point in time when the insured person would be entitled to make a claim according to the legal expenses insurance contract?

               2.

               In the event that question 1 is answered in the negative: In litigation proceedings, when does an inquiry or do proceedings referred to in Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC start, leading to the free choice of a lawyer? Is the relevant point in time solely based on the formal commencement of court proceedings (the lawsuit being filed with the court), or are prior steps also included, and, if so, which ones?

               3.

               In the event that questions 1 and 2 are answered after 16 January 2017:

                           a)

                           Does the principle of loyalty laid down in Article 3 of the EEA Agreement preclude national courts, in all circumstances, from calling the validity of decisions of the EFTA Court into question?

                           b)

                           In the event that question 3a is answered in the negative: Which circumstances would allow national courts to question the validity of decisions of the EFTA Court, without thereby being in breach of the principle of loyalty laid down in Article 3 of the EEA Agreement?


title: Case T-40/09: Action brought on 26 January 2009 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Selecciones Americanas (VOGUE CAFÉ)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/31

         Action brought on 26 January 2009 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Selecciones Americanas (VOGUE CAFÉ)
   (Case T-40/09)
   (2009/C 82/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Selecciones Americanas, SA (Sitges (Barcelona), 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 19 November 2008 in case R 280/2008-4 insofar as it relates to the opposition based on Spanish trade marks registration No 255 186 and 2 529 728;

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2008 in case R 280/2008-4 such that consideration of the opposition is suspended pending the outcome of the opposition for Community trade mark application No 3 064 219; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VOGUE CAFÉ’, for goods and services in classes 21, 25 and 43

      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: Spanish trade mark registration No 255 186 of the figurative mark ‘Vogue Juan Fort, S.A. — Badalona’ for goods in class 25; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 529 728 of the figurative mark ‘VOGUE studio’ for goods in class 25; Community trade mark application No 3 064 219 of the figurative mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 25, 35 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition for the goods applied for in class 25

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 and/or of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was capable of proving use of Spanish trade mark registration No 255 186; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and Spanish trade mark registration No 2 529 728; Infringement of Rules 20(7) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal stated inapplicable grounds for refusing to grant a suspension of proceedings pending determination of the opposition to Community trade mark application No 3 064 219.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-274/03 (1)

   (2004/C 314/24)
   By order of 16 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-274/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Case F-122/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Ioannis Economidis v Commission. (Officials — Appointment — Post of Head of Unit — Rejection of applicant's candidature — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Ioannis Economidis v Commission.
   (Case F-122/05) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Post of Head of Unit - Rejection of applicant's candidature - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2006/C 331/105)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and G. Berscheid, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of Head of Unit RTD.F.5 — Biotechnology and applied genomics and appointing Mr H. to that post.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 December 2004 appointing Mr H. to the post of Head of Unit of Biotechnology and applied genomics unit and, consequently, rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-528/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 59/8                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               Action brought on 18 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-531/03)
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on
28 December 2002.                                                                                (2004/C 59/14)
(1) OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.
                                                                           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 18 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of the
                                                                           Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties, and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant on
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           secondment to the Legal Service of the Commission, acting as
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                             Netherlands
                          (Case C-528/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2004/C 59/13)
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, in conjunction
                                                                                with point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I and point 10(e) of
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                     Annex II, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1)of 27 June
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                               and private projects on the environment, as amended by
Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,                            Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) of 3 March 1997,
acting as Agents.
                                                                                —     in so far as that directive has, in particular, not yet
                                                                                been transposed for purposes of road construction
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                            projects in the federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate
                                                                                and
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 2002/35/EC (1) of 25 April 2002                       —     in so far as it is possible for road construction
      concerning the setting up of a harmonised safety regime                          projects in the federal Land of North Rhine-
      for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, or, in                      Westphalia to be granted development consent
      any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                          without an environmental impact assessment being
      measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to                           carried out;
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                     of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on
1 January 2003.
                                                                           The period for transposition of Directive 97/11/EC amending
(1) OJ 2002 L 112, p. 21.
                                                                           Directive 85/337/EEC expired on 14 March 1999 without the
                                                                           federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate having adopted the
                                                                           necessary measures to implement it, in particular in relation to
                                                                           road construction projects.


title: Case F-32/12: Action brought on 7 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/36

         Action brought on 7 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-32/12)
   2012/C 138/86
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to reimburse a quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-56/09 Marcuccio v Commission, which the defendant was ordered to pay by judgment of 9 June 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 4 January 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 20 July 2011 against the decision rejecting the application of 4 January 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, confirm that, also by failing to adopt a position in respect of the application of 4 January 2011, the Commission has unlawfully abstained from adopting the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal delivered on 9 June 2010 in Case F-56/09 Marcuccio v Commission, in particular paragraph 4 of the operative part of that judgment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 174,87, which, if and in so far as it is not paid to the applicant, will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from tomorrow and until the day on which payment of that sum takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 per day for each additional day which, with effect from tomorrow and ad infinitum, passes while the failure on the part of the Commission to pay to the applicant the abovementioned sum of EUR 3 174,87 or, at the very least, to adopt an express position in relation to the application of 4 January 2011 persists, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 10 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-40/04 Emma Bonino and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act against which proceedings may be brought — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 July 2005
   in Case T-40/04 Emma Bonino and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

   (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act against which proceedings may be brought - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 229/47)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-40/04: Emma Bonino, residing at Rome (Italy), Marco Cappato, residing at Vedano al Lambro (Italy), Gianfranco Dell'Alba, residing at Livorno (Italy), Benedetto Della Vedova, residing at Tirano (Italy), Olivier Depuis, residing at Rome, Marco Pannella, residing at Rome, Maurizio Turco, residing at Pulsano (Italy), Liste Emma Bonino, established at Rome, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against European Parliament (agents: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg), and Council of the European Union (agents: M. Sims and I. Díez Parra) — application for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2002 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-339/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/31

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-339/06)
   (2006/C 224/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC (1) of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 81.