title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 September 1997 in Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation (Group) v. Council of the European Union (Dumping - State-trading country - Like product - Individual treatment - Calculation of the dumping margin)

text:
C 357/26                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 11 . 97
        Removal from the register of Case C-362/96 (')                         Removal from the register of Case C-57/97 (')
                            ( 97/C 357/47)                                                           ( 97/C 357/48 )
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-362/96 : Commission                By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Luxembourg.                                                            removal from the register of Case C-57/97: Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities v. French Republic.
(») OJ C 9 , 11 . 1 . 1997.
                                                                       (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                        of 25 September 1997
                                                                       (■) OJ C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
in Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation ( Group )
             v. Council of the European Union (')
(Dumping — State-trading country — Like product —
Individual treatment — Calculation of the dumping
                                margin)
                            ( 97/C 357/49 )
                                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 July 1997
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       in Case T-44/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
In Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation ( Group ),
established in Shanghai (People's Republic of China ),                 (Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the
represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister, with an address              people of Georgia and Armenia — Damage alleged by the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and                successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection
Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of                  of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the
the European Union ( Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Jorge                Commission — Action for annulment of the Commission 's
Monteiro, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ),                    refusal to grant compensation — Action to establish non-
supported by Commission of the European Communities                    contractual liability — Contractual origin of the
( Agents : Eric White and Nicolas Khan ) and The European              Commission 's obligation on which the action to establish
Bicycle Manufacturers' Association ( EBMA ), established               liability is based — Absence of any arbitration clause
in Paris, represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the               within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty —
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe —                                                            Instance)
application for annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 97/C 357/50 )
No 2474/93 of 8 September 1993 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of
bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China and                               (Language of the case: Italian)
collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty
( OJ L 228 , 9 . 9 . 1993 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: R.
                                                                       In Case T-44/96, Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at
García-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili , J. Azizi, R. M.
                                                                       Ostuni, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                       Michele Roberti, both of the " Naples Bar, 36 Place du
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       Grand Sablon, Brussels, against Commission of the
25 September 1997, in which it:                                        European Communities ( Agents: Eugenio de March and
                                                                       Alberto Dal Farro ) — application under Articles 178 and
1 . dismisses the application;                                         173 of the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage
                                                                       alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                       of the delay in collection by the carrier designated by the
2 . orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay              Commission of the olive oil made available by the
      those of the defendant and the intervener EBMA;                  applicant under a tendering procedure for the free supply


title: Case C-525/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Area aid application — Article 33 — Penalties — Irregularities committed intentionally)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/16

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck
   (Case C-525/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Area aid application - Article 33 - Penalties - Irregularities committed intentionally))
   2014/C 421/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vlaams Gewest

      Defendant: Heidi Van Den Broeck

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first paragraph of Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2004 of 23 January 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer is to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity was eligible.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03: Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union (Openness — Public access to Council documents — Partial refusal of access — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 23 November 2004
   in Case T-84/03: Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Openness - Public access to Council documents - Partial refusal of access - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions)
   (2005/C 31/39)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-84/03: Maurizio Turco, residing in Pulsano (Italy), represented by O.W. Brouwer, T. Janssens and C. Schillemans, lawyers, supported by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, with an address for service in Luxembourg), Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: J. Liisberg initially and subsequently J. Molde, with an address for service in Luxembourg), and Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, with an address for service in Luxembourg) against Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-C. Piris and M. Bauer), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. Jackson, instructing P. Sales and J. Stratford, Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Petite, C. Docksey and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the Council's decision of 19 December 2002 partially refusing the applicant access to certain documents appearing on the agenda of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting of 14 and 15 October 2002 – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the Council's legal opinion;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the applicant and the Council each to bear half of the costs of the proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-144/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Numbi v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures — Democratic Republic of the Congo — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Numbi v Council
   (Case T-144/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-43/16: Action brought on 29 January 2016 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/44

         Action brought on 29 January 2016 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission
   (Case T-43/16)
   (2016/C 106/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: J. Murach, lawyer and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 November 2015, adopted by the Director General for Competition in relation to the implementation of the Non-MNO Remedy in Case COMP/M.7018 — Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (the ‘Merger decision’), which declared the Self-Commitment Letter in line with the Final Commitments and with EU law;

               —

               order the Commission to request that TEF DE issues a new Self-Commitment letter that is strictly limited to the obligation required from it, as set out in paragraph 78 of the Final Commitments approved by the merger decision;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant, in accordance with Article 87 of the Consolidated Version of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the decision, the Commission engaged in manifest errors of law because the Treaties, the European Union Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’), the Merger decision and the Final Commitments do not leave any room for Clause 2.3 of the Self-Commitment letter as accepted by the decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting its decision, misused its powers by taking account considerations unrelated to competition, in breach of the Treaties, the EUMR and the Merger decision.


title: Case C-75/03: Action brought on 19 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 101/22                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
Q ues ti o n 1                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
Is it compatible with point 8(a)(iii) of Article 4 of the                     Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
First Medicinal Products Directive (Directive 65/65/EEC ( 1), as              the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
amended) for a product to be authorised under the abridged                    implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
application procedure when a salt of the active substance in                  period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
the product is changed from the one used in the reference                     expired on 17 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
product?                                                                      provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
                                                                              in the conclusions of the Commission.
Q ues ti o n 2                                                                (1 ) OJ L 201 of 17.7.1998, p. 88.
Can the abridged application procedure be used when an
applicant, on its own initiative or at the request of national
health authorities, submits additional documentation in the
form of certain pharmacological or toxicological tests or
clinical trials with a view to demonstrating that the product is
‘essentially similar to’ the reference product?                               Action brought on 20 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
( 1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
     mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
     trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ B 22                                  (Case C-77/03)
     of 9.2.1965, p. 369).
                                                                                (2003/C 101/37)
                                                                              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Action brought on 19 February 2003 by the Commission                          ties on 20 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
         of the European Communities against Ireland                          Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Euro-
                                                                              pean Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                             (Case C-75/03)                                   Gómez de la Cruz, also of the European Commission’s Legal
                                                                              Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                            (2003/C 101/36)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                     1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
Justice of the European Communities on 19 February 2003 by                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                             comply with Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European
by Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service                     Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on
in Luxembourg.                                                                      the legal protection of designs and/or by failing to inform
                                                                                the Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                         directive;
(1) find that Ireland has failed in its obligations under the EC              2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
       Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29th June 1998 amending
       Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
       employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
       businesses or parts of businesses (1), or by failing to                The period for transposition expired on 28 October 2001.
       ensure that employers’ and employees’ representatives
       have introduced the necessary provisions by agreement,
       and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof; and                (1 ) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.
(2) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 31/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2.2.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
                                                                         the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) —
                     of 19 September 2001                                application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                         No 978/2000 of 8 May 2000 imposing a definitive
                                                                         countervailing duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester
in Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation v Council
                                                                         originating in Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan and collecting
                    of the European Union (1)
                                                                         definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 2000 L 113,
                                                                         p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
(Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the                   Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
      contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)                   Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                                                                         H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the
                          (2002/C 31/19)                                 operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
In Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, established in            2.    There is no need to give a decision on the application for leave
Taiwan (Republic of China), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,                to intervene submitted by the Commission.
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) —              3.    The defendant shall pay the costs.
application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 978/2000 of 8 May 2000 imposing a definitive
countervailing duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester          (1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.
originating in Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan and collecting
definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 2000 L 113,
p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
                                                                               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.   There is no need to give a decision on the application for leave
     to intervene submitted by the Commission.
                                                                                of 24 October 2001
3.   The defendant shall pay the costs.
                                                                         in Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine v Office for
(1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.                                                 Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                         (Temporary staff — Recruitment — Age limit — Rejection
                                                                         of application — Action for damages — Inadmissibility —
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 19 September 2001                                                          (2002/C 31/21)
in Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd v Council of                                      (Language of the case: English)
                     the European Union (1)
(Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the
      contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                                                                         In Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine, residing in Salford
                          (2002/C 31/20)                                 (United Kingdom), represented initially by J. Davies and
                                                                         subsequently by S. Whale, lawyers, against Office for Harmon-
                                                                         ization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and F. Casertano) — application
                                                                         for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
                                                                         applicant by reason of the rejection of his application for a
In Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd, established in               post of English-language lawyer-linguist — the Court of First
Taiwan (Republic of China), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,          Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille by judgment of that court of 7 August 1998 in the case of Philippe Anssens v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord (Case C-325/98)

text:
C 378/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                    (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 October 1998
                     of 22 October 1998
                                                                           in Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
       in Case C-26/98: Commission of the European                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
                  Communities v. Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Cover under the joint sickness insurance
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð               scheme Ð Divorced spouse of a former official Ð Appeal
Directive 94/26/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the                            manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)
                       prescribed period)                                                     (98/C 378/12)
                         (98/C 378/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: English)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-26/98: Commission of the European                          In Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, divorced
Communities (Agents: Hans Christian Stùvlbñk and                     spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
Michael Schotter) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley)             residing in Kehlen (Luxembourg), represented by Dieter
Ð Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for
or by failing to notify, within the prescribed period the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker, Braun
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary            & Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-TheÂreÁse Ð Appeal against
to comply with Commission Directive 94/26/EC of 15 June              the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 79/            European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-66/95
196/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member               [1997] ECR II-637, seeking the annulment of that
States concerning electrical equipment for use in                    judgment, the other party to the proceedings being:
potentially explosive atmospheres employing certain types            Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
of protection (OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33), Ireland has              Currall, and Bertrand Wägenbaur), the Court (Fourth
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Ð the          Chamber) composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,                Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K. M.
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H.               Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; S.                  Registrar has made an order on 8 October 1998, the
Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a            operative part of which is as follows:
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed          2. The applicant is ordererd to pay the costs of the
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                      proceedings.
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission
     Directive 94/26/EC of 15 June 1994 adapting to
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC on
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     concerning electrical equipment for use in potentially
     explosive atmospheres employing certain types of
     protection, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that directive;
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                     Grande Instance de Lille by judgment of that court of
                                                                     7 August 1998 in the case of Philippe Anssens v. Directeur
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                  des Services Fiscaux du Nord
                                                                                (Case C-325/98)
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.                                                                        (98/C 378/13)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/7
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille                 4. a mean cost per horsepower of:
(Regional Court, Lille) of 7 August 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 31 August 1998, for a
                                                                        295,00 French francs for the 19 and 20 fiscal CV
preliminary ruling in the case of Philippe Anssens v.
                                                                        band,
Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord on the following
                                                                        401,80 French francs for the 21 and 22 CV band,
question:
                                                                        541,10 French francs for the 23 CV and over band,
Considering that, as Community law stands at present, the
Member States remain free to subject products such as                   whereas the highest cost per fiscal horsepower is
cars to a system of road tax the amount of which                        202,20 French francs for the 15Ð16 CV band;
increases progressively according to an objective criterion
such as cylinder capacity, provided that that system of             5. successive differentials expressed as percentages of the
taxation is free from any discriminatory or protective                  tax compared to the basic tax (260 French francs):
effect, may the tax system established by the French
legislature be regarded as corresponding to the above
criteria of objectivity and non-discrimination, that tax                735 % for the 19 and 20 CV band compared to the 17
system including:                                                       and 18 CV band,
                                                                        1 111 % for the 21 and 22 CV band compared to the
                                                                        19 and 20 CV band,
1. successive differentials between one band and the next,              1 666 % for the 23 CV and over band compared to
    taking as the basis the first band covering 2-3-4 CV                the 21 and 22 CV band,
    fiscal power value, 95-96 tax disc for the deÂpartement
    of Charente, whose amount is 206 French francs,
    namely:                                                             whereas the maximum percentage increase amounts to
                                                                        430 % and relates to the 12 to 14 CV band compared
                                                                        to the 10 and 11 CV band;
    for the 19 and 20 CV band 1 910 French francs,
    for the 21 and 22 CV band 2 888 French francs,
    for the 23 CV and over band 4 332 French francs,                6. a multiplying coefficient for each band in relation to
                                                                        the basic tax, which is 260 French francs, amounting
                                                                        to:
    whereas the maximum successive differential for the
     preceding bands covering lower fiscal power values is
     1 118 French francs;                                               22,12 for 19 and 20 CV,
                                                                        33,23 for 21 and 22 CV,
                                                                        49,89 for 23 CV and over,
2. differentials weighted by band and fiscal power value
     of:
                                                                        whereas the highest coefficient is only 14,78 and
     955 French francs for the 19 and 20 CV band,                       relates to the 17 and 18 CV band, that of the
     1 444 French francs for the 21 and 22 CV band,                     proceeding band (15Ð16 CV) being 12,05;
     4 332 French francs for the 23 CV and over band,
                                                                    it being observed that in any event French production does
     whereas the maximum weighted differential for the              not include vehicles with a fiscal horsepower greater than
    preceding bands is 373 French francs (12, 13 and 14             17 CV?
    CV fiscal values band);
3. a cost of the tax disc per fiscal horsepower of:
    302,70 French francs           corresponding     to   the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 19 CV,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    287,60 French francs           corresponding     to   the       Ireland, by order of that Court of 16 June 1998, in the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 20 CV,                   case of Masterfoods Ltd against HB Ice Cream Ltd, and
    411,40 French francs           corresponding     to   the       HB Ice Cream Ltd against Masterfoods Ltd trading as
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 21 CV,                                           Mars Ireland
    392,70 French francs           corresponding     to   the                            (Case C-344/98)
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 22 CV,
                                                                                (98/C 378/14)
    564,00 French francs           corresponding     to   the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 23 CV,
    540,30 French francs           corresponding     to   the       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 24 CV,                   European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    518,90 French francs           corresponding     to   the       Ireland, of 16 June 1998, which was received at the Court
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 25 CV,                   Registry on 21 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                    in the case of Masterfoods Ltd against HB Ice Cream Ltd,
    whereas the highest cost per fiscal horsepower is 226           and HB Ice Cream Ltd against Masterfoods Ltd trading as
    French francs for a vehicle of 17 CV power rating;              Mars Ireland, on the following questions:


title: Case C-282/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Prefect of the Centre region

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Prefect of the Centre region
   (Case C-282/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/39
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maribel Dominguez

      Defendants: Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Prefect of the Centre region

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum of ten days’ (or one month’s) actual work during the reference period?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC, which imposes a specific obligation on an employer in so far as it creates entitlement to paid leave for a worker who is absent on health grounds for a period of one year or more, require a national court hearing proceedings between individuals to disregard a conflicting national provision which makes entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on at least ten days’ actual work during the reference year?

               3.

               Since Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC does not distinguish between workers according to whether their absence from work during the reference period is due to a work-related accident, an occupational disease, an accident on the journey to or from work or a non-occupational disease, are workers entitled, under that directive, to paid leave of the same length whatever the reason for their absence on health grounds, or must that directive be interpreted as not precluding the length of paid leave differing according to the reason for the worker’s absence, since national law provides in certain circumstances for the length of paid annual leave to exceed the minimum of four weeks provided for by the directive?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case T-530/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2014  — Bermejo Garde v EESC (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Illegal activities affecting the interests of the European Union — Serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials — Articles 12(a) and 22(a) of the Staff Regulations — Denunciation by the appellant — Reassignment following that denunciation — No consultation of OLAF by the immediate superior who received the information — Measures adversely affecting a person — Good faith — Rights of the defence — Competence of the authority issuing the measure)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2014 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case T-530/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Illegal activities affecting the interests of the European Union - Serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials - Articles 12(a) and 22(a) of the Staff Regulations - Denunciation by the appellant - Reassignment following that denunciation - No consultation of OLAF by the immediate superior who received the information - Measures adversely affecting a person - Good faith - Rights of the defence - Competence of the authority issuing the measure))
   2014/C 421/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented initially by G. Nijborg, and subsequently by U. Schwab and M. Lernhart, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Bermejo Garde v EESC (F-41/10, not yet published in the ECR), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Bermejo Garde v EESC (F-41/10) in so far as it dismisses Mr Moises Bermejo Garde’s action for annulment of Decision No 133/10 A of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 24 March 2010 relieving him of his previous post and of EESC Decision No 184/10 A of 13 April 2010 concerning his reassignment;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-282/97)

text:
C 295/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27. 9 . 97
order that the third party cease using the trademark for                  München ( Labour Court, Munich ) of 3 July 1997, which
goods which have been put on the market under that                        was received at the Court Registry on 1 August 1997, for
mark in a State which is not a Contracting State ?                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrea Krüger v.
                                                                          Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg on the following question :
                                                                          Is a rule of national law — in this case Paragraph 3n of
                                                                          the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag ( federal employees'
                                                                          collective agreement, 'BAT') in conjunction with the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                 Zuwendungs-TV ( collective agreement on allowances ) of
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 22 July 1997 in the                  12 October 1993 — compatible with Directive 76/207/
case    of   Rose    Elektrotechnik GmbH &              Co  KG    v.      EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
                     Oberfinanzdirektion Köln                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
                         ( Case C-280/97 )                                employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                          working conditions ('), and with Article 119 of the EC
                             ( 97/C 295/30 )                              Treaty, if it provides that workers who exercise an activity
                                                                          which is not subject to compulsory social insurance during
                                                                          child-care leave , by contrast with workers liable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    compulsory social insurance, do not receive an annual
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate                     special allowance under the relevant collective agreement ?
of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf ( Finance Court,                          Is that rule compatible with the above provisions in
Düsseldorf) of 22 July 1997, which was received at the                    particular if workers who are on child-care leave but are
Court Registry on 1 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling                 not working nevertheless receive the special allowance
in the case of Rose Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co KG v.
                                                                          under the collective agreement in the first year ?
Oberfinanzdirektion Köln on the following questions :
                                                                          (') OJ L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
 1.  Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version in
     Annex I to Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/96
     of 9 September 1996 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
     Tariff (')   ( combined         nomenclature    1997 )  to   be
     interpreted as meaning that an article described as a                Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
     junction box and consisting of a rectangular container                  the European Communities against the French Republic
     with lid of coated die-cast aluminium ( aluminium/                                              ( Case C-282/97 )
     silicon alloy with aluminium content predominant by
     weight ) with four steel connecting bolts and four                                                 ( 97/C 295/32 )
     earthing bolts of copper-plated steel ( packed loose in
     the article and yet to be inserted into threaded holes
     provided for that purpose ) is to be classified under                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     heading No 8538 ?                                                     the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, represented by Fernando
                                                                           Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-
 2 . If the answer to Question 1 is negative : Is the
                                                                           Castera, a national civil servant on secondment to that
     Common Customs Tariff ( Combined Nomenclature
                                                                           service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      1997) to be interpreted as meaning that such an                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
     Article is to be classified, applying the first sentence of
                                                                           Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      General Rule 2(a ) for the interpretation of the
      Combined Nomenclature, under heading No 8536 ?
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims
 H OJ L 238 , 19 . 9 . 1996 , p. 1 .                                       that the Court should :
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt witin the period
                                                                                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                92/73/EEC (') of 22 September 1992 widening the
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht                     scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2 ) and 75/319/EEC ( 3 )
 München by order of that court of 3 July 1997 in the case                      on the approximation of provisions laid down by
       of Andrea Krüger v. Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg                           law, regulation or administrative action relating to
                           ( Case C-281/97)                                     medicinal products and laying down additional
                                                                                provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the
                               ( 97/C 295/31 )                                  French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                     — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27. 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Portuguese
The third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                                                          Republic
requires the Member States to which a directive is                                                    ( Case C-285/97)
addressed to ensure that their legislation is in compliance
with the directive within the prescribed period . When the                                              ( 97/C 295/34 )
period prescribed in Article 10 of Directive 92/73/EEC
expired on 31 December 1993 , France had not adopted
the necessary measures .                                                  An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(>) OJ L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 8 .
                                                                          on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .                   Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
(») OJ L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 13 .                                     of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                 Belgium                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           ( Case C-283/97 )                                     Commission Directive 94/5 1 /EC (') of 7 November
                                                                                1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                             ( 97/C 295/33 )                                     90/21 9/EEC ( 2 ) on the contained use of genetically
                                                                                modified micro-organisms, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
before the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the                              Article 2 of Directive 94/5 1 /EC,
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service,
and O. Couvert-Castera, a national civil servant on                       — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
secondment to that service, acting as Agents, with an                            the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      under those provisions,
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                   — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
       92/73/EEC ( x ) of 22 September 1992 widening the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
       scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2) and 75/31 9/EEC ( 3 )            those in Case C-282/97 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposing
       on the approximation of provisions laid down by                    the Directive expired on 30 April 1995 .
       law, regulation or administrative action relating to
       medicinal products and laying down additional                      (') OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p . 29 .
       provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the                  ( 2 ) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            (■') See page 20 of this Official Journal .
       under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
submitted in Case C-282/97 (4 ).                                                                             Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-286/97
O OJ L 297, 13 . 10.1992, p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965—1966 , p. 20 .                                                    97/C 295/35 )
(') OJ L 147, 9 . 6.1975 , p . 13 .
( 4 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .
                                                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case T-517/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Sales)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/49

         Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Sales)
   (Case T-517/15)
   (2015/C 354/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Sales’ — Application for registration No 12 316 493

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1972/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 493 Limbic® Sales;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 63, the first sentence of Article 75 and of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-428/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/12

         Action brought on 27 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-428/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2007/36/EC expired on 3 August 2009. On the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17.


title: Case T-385/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Orange v Commission (State aid — Pensions — Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom — Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions — Advantage — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Rights of the defence)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Orange v Commission
   (Case T-385/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Pensions - Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Rights of the defence))
   (2015/C 118/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 on State aid C 25/08 (ex NN 23/08) reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012, L 279, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-91/99: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 273/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           23.9.2000
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period      1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods,
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary          all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      to comply with Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November                  to comply with the provisions referred to in the first subpara-
      1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working             graph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June
      time, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in
      under that directive;                                                      order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls
                                                                                on live animals and certain animal products and amending
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that subpara-
                                                                                graph;
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             of 8 June 2000                                                           (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-91/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    of 8 June 2000
                  ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-264/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                           prescribed period)                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — Haulage by operators
                                                                           established in other Member States — National rules requir-
                            (2000/C 273/06)                                         ing enrolment on the register of undertakings)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/07)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-91/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:                 In Case C-264/99: Commission of the European Communities
L. Fernandes and M. J. Carvalho) — application for a declar-               (Agents: A. Aresu and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agent:
ation that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all         Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by I. M. Braguglia) —
the measures necessary fully to comply with Council Directive              application for a declaration that, by maintaining rules requir-
96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Direc-                 ing that Community nationals who carry on business as
tive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary                  hauliers in Italy as service providers be entered on the
inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal                professional register kept by Chambers of Commerce following
products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and                            authorisation by the Ministry for the Interior, the Italian
91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Portuguese Republic                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the             EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of                composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                 Chamber, A. La Pergola and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; S. Alber,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
judgment on 8 June 2000, in which it:                                      on 8 June 2000, in which it:


title: Case C-128/15: Action brought on 13 March 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/17

         Action brought on 13 March 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-128/15)
   (2015/C 155/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón y A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The Kingdom of Spain claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measure, and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  Infringement by the Council of its margin of discretion in fixing fishing opportunities for 2015 and 2016 in Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2014
                   (1)
                  and Part 2 of the Annex thereto for the species roundnose grenadier (RNG — Coryphaenoides rupestris) in zones Vb, VI and VII, and roughhead grenadier (RHG — Macrourus berglax) in zones VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV, which undermines the relative stability of historical catches of the species roughhead grenadier by the Kingdom of Spain.

               2.

                  Compliance with the principle of proportionality. Regulation No 1367/2014 is manifestly disproportionate with regard to the fixing of the combined TAC for the two species of grenadier in zones V, VI and VII on the one hand, and for zones VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV on the other.

               3.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The principle of non-discrimination has been infringed in the fixing of a combined TAC for the two species of grenadier, since in comparison with the cases referred to, the principle of relative stability was not complied with and the TAC was imposed unilaterally by the European institutions without taking account of Spain’s legitimate demands.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 of 15 December 2014 fixing for 2015 and 2016 the fishing opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2014 L 366, p. 1).


title: Case C-71/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2013 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 13 December 2012 in Case T-588/10 Greece v Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/13

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2013 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 13 December 2012 in Case T-588/10 Greece v Commission
   (Case C-71/13 P)
   2013/C 101/27
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and E. Leftheriotou)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the appeal and set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union for the reasons more specifically set out;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               —

               By the first ground of appeal in the tobacco sector the Hellenic Republic maintains that the following apply:

                           1.

                           infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005;

                           2.

                           the conditions for payment of the support in respect of tobacco were defined exhaustively and exclusively in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2075/92 (1) and therefore the General Court of the European Union erred when it unlawfully accepted that Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998 (2) lawfully laid down an additional condition for payment of the premium that the tobacco must be delivered to the first processor at the latest by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest and, further, Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998, which has the effect that as a result of late delivery by even one day the producer loses the aid in its entirety, infringes the principle of proportionality when read together with Article 39(1)(b) TFEU and Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2075/92;

                           3.

                           infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on late deliveries of tobacco);

                           4.

                           contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal and misinterpretation of Article 9(4) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the transfer of cultivation contracts) and

                           5.

                           Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2075/1992 and Article 7 of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the use of leased installations or equipment by the approved first processor).

               —

               By the second ground of appeal in the area of dried grapes, it is claimed that the General Court of the European Union erred as follows:

                           1.

                           misinterpretation of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation 1621/1999 (3) as to the meaning of natural disaster and

                           2.

                           misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines in respect of flat-rate corrections in the area of dried grapes (sultanas for the 2004 harvest and currants for the 2005 harvest) since the conditions for the imposition of a correction of 25 % were not met and consequently the statement of reasons in the decision is insufficient.

               —

               By the third ground of appeal in the area of cultivation of arable land, it is claimed that the following apply:

                           1.

                           infringement of European Union law in respect of the legal basis for the correction, with misinterpretation of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 (4) when a valid legal basis is provided only by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/05 (5) and

                           2.

                           infringement of European Union Law with misinterpretation and misapplication without updating of the guidelines for flat-rate corrections under the old CAP to the new CAP in respect of the distinction of audits as basic and supplementary, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principle of legal certainty, a particular expression of which is the principle of non-retroactivity, since the amounts of the flat-rate corrections related to a distinct set of audit rules, and the contested updating of the abovementioned guidelines took place in June 2006 and consequently could not be applied to the 2006 reporting year.

               —

               By the fourth ground of appeal in the area of cross compliance, it is maintained that by the decision of the General Court of the principle of non-retroactivity was infringed.

               —

               By the fifth ground of appeal in respect of POSEI measures for the small islands of the Aegean, it is claimed that there is an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, and of the principle that action be taken within a reasonable period of time and that the European Union act timeously.

               —

               By the sixth ground of appeal in the area of animal (bovine ovine and caprine) premiums, it is claimed that there was misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 (6) and Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, and of Article 12 and 24(2) of Regulation No 2419/01 (7) and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state full reasons.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 70).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector (OJ 1998 L 358, p. 17).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes (OJ 1999 L 192, p.21).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 1).


title: Case C-144/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/27

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações
      (Case C-144/16)
      (2016/C 211/35)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Município de Palmela

         Defendants: ASAE — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

         Questions referred

                  (a)

                  Considering that Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December adopted the Regulation setting out mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces;

                  (b)

                  Considering that Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May amended Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December, amending the wording of certain technical standards and adding other technical standards, and republished that Regulation of which it forms part;

                  (c)

                  Considering that neither of the two above-mentioned national legislative texts were notified to the European Commission in the context of a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations set out in Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 and transposed into national law by Decree-Law No 58/2000 of 18 April:

                              1.

                              Must the national court declare that a national legislative text is entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the court’s declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? Or,

                              2.

                              Must a national legislative text be declared entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text?

                              3.

                              Are all the technical standards set out in the said Regulation inapplicable, or only those technical standards amended or introduced by Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May?

         (1)  Directive 98/34/EC 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 (OJ 1998, L 204, p. 37).


title: Case C-625/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2016 by Anikó Pint against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2016 in Case T-660/16 Anikó Pint v European Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/14

         Appeal brought on 1 December 2016 by Anikó Pint against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2016 in Case T-660/16 Anikó Pint v European Commission
   (Case C-625/16 P)
   (2017/C 112/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 2 March 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.


title: Case C-456/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 17 September 2010 — Asociación Nacional De Expendedores De Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración Del Estado

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 17 September 2010 — Asociación Nacional De Expendedores De Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración Del Estado
   (Case C-456/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional De Expendedores De Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT)

      Defendant: Administración Del Estado

      Question referred

   Should Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 28 EC) be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition imposed under Spanish national law on tobacco outlet licence holders against engaging in the activity of importing manufactured tobacco products from other Member States constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect as prohibited by the Treaty?


title: Case T-564/10: Action brought on 15 December 2010 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/25

         Action brought on 15 December 2010 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission
   (Case T-564/10)
   2011/C 55/46
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA (Lordelo, Portugal) and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Calheiros, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should

               —

               partially annul, in accordance with Article 264 of the TFEU, the Commission Decision, adopted by its accounting officer by letter dated 8 October 2010, with the reference BUDG/C5/MG s737983, in so far as it requires the financial guarantee to be provided by a bank with long-term ‘AA’ rating;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their application, the applicants allege:
   1.
         First plea, regarding breach of essential formalities — failure to state reasons for the Decision adopted on 8 October 2010.

   Based on this plea, the applicants claim that:

               —

               Under Article 296 of the TFEU all acts, including decisions, must state the reasons on which they are based. The Decision adopted on 8 October 2010 does not state any reasons for the rating requirement of the bank issuing the guarantee.

               —

               Considering the level of rating required, there should be such a statement of reasons. The requirement to state reasons is even greater in this case, where a discretionary, and not a circumscribed, power is being exercised.

               —

               Furthermore, the Decision does not invoke any Community rule (even internal) on which such a requirement could be based. As the Decision lacks a statement of reasons it should, in this part, be annulled.

         2.
         Second plea, regarding breach of the Treaty — the principle of proportionality.

   Based on this plea, the applicants claim that:

               —

               Under Article 85 of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2342/2002, to allow additional time for payment, ‘in order to safeguard the Community's rights, the debtor [is to lodge] a financial guarantee covering the debt outstanding in both the principal sum and the interest, which is accepted by the institution’s accounting officer.’ The interests that that guarantee is intended to protect, therefore, are the Community’s rights, in this case the right to receive the amounts due.

               —

               A first demand guarantee, along the lines of the model required by the Commission, issued by a credit institution, constitutes a proper and appropriate means of ensuring payment of the amounts due. Thus, the whole Portuguese legal system (and, in general, that of the other countries of the European Union) accepts the provision of a bank guarantee for the most diverse purposes, including to suspend the execution of judicial decisions.

               —

               In the present case, the guarantee proposed by the applicants (and not accepted by the Commission) would be issued by the Banco Comercial Português, S.A., a credit institution having its head office in the European Union, subject to the rules of supervision and consolidation defined by the Community institutions. Thus, there seems to be no justification, in order to defend the Community’s rights, for ruling out the possibility of the guarantee being issued by the said bank and requiring it to be issued by a bank with long-term ‘AA’ rating.

               —

               Furthermore, the public is aware of the current situation in which the ratings of Portuguese banks have been recently affected by the change in the rating of the Portuguese Republic. Thus, at the moment, there is no bank based in Portugal that fulfils the rating criteria (long-term ‘AA’) required in the Commission Decision.

               —

               Accordingly, the Commission Decision therefore does not fulfil the criterion of necessity (which constitutes an important dimension of the principle of proportionality) since, of the possible measures, the Commission opted for the one that, in the current circumstances, is most prejudicial to the interests of the applicants.

               —

               Thus, there is a clear lack of proportionality between the requirement imposed by the Commission (guarantee issued by a European bank with long-term ‘AA’ rating) and the objective sought (protection of the right of the Commission to receipt of the amounts), so that the Decision of the Commission should, in this part, be annulled.


title: Case T-174/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/62

      Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
      (Case T-174/16)
      (2016/C 211/77)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

         Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0004 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1652/2014-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-548/08: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission for the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/28

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission for the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-548/08) (1)

   2010/C 51/46

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 May 1996 in Case T-140/94, Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens v. European Parliament (Officials - Action for annulment - Action for compensation - Interinstitutional transfer - Article 29 (1) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
No C 197/18        | EN j                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6. 1. 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-116/95 ( ] )              Register of Case C-l 16/95 : Commission of the European
                        (96/C 197/37)                               Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 3 May 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            (') OJ No C 159, 24. 6 . 1995 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 21 May 1996                                                         of 22 May 1996
in Case T-148/95 , W v. Commission of the European                  in Case T-140/94 , Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens
                       Communities ( ] )                                                v. European Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials — Permanent partial invalidity — Surgical                (Officials — Action for annulment — Action for
                            operation)                              compensation — Interinstitutional transfer — Article 29 (1 )
                        ( 96/C 197/38                                                    of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/39 )
              (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                    In Case T-140/94 : Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens,
                                                                    an official of the Court of Justice of the European
In Case T-148/95 : W, an official of the Commission of the          Communities, represented initially by Carlos de la Sotilla y
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by          Diez de Oñate, of the Madrid Bar, and subsequently by
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address          Sonia Sequéro Marcos, of the Malaga Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire              for service in Luxembourg at the residence of Enrique
Myson, 1 rue Glesener, against the Commission of the                Quijano, 53 rue de Beggen, against the European Parliament
European Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) —                    ( Agents : Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) —
application for, first, the annulment of the Commission's           application for the annulment of the European Parliament's
decision of 25 October 1994 fixing the applicant's                  decision of 10 January 1994 , rejecting the applicant's
permanent partial invalidity rate at 0 % for as long as he          complaint against the earlier decision of 16 August 1993
refused to undergo a surgical operation and, secondly, an           whereby the Parliament rejected his application for transfer
order requiring the Commission to pay the applicant's               to a post as a Spanish-language interpreter, and also for
doctors' fees and symbolic damages of one ecu in                    compensation for the non-material damage which the
compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                  applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the refusal of
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ),           such transfer — the Court of First Instance ( Second
composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the Chamber ), R.           Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner ( President of the
Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,        Chamber ), C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
21 May 1996 , in which it:                                          given a judgment on 22 May 1996, in which it:
                                                                    1 , annuls the Parliament's decision of 10 January 1994
1 , dismisses the application;                                             rejecting the applicant's complaint against the rejection
                                                                           of his candidature for the vacant post which was the
                                                                           subject of Notice No PE/LA/91 of 15 March 1993;
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
0 ) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                  3 , orders the Parliament to pay the whole of the costs.
                                                                     ( ! ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .


title: Case T-115/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/54

      Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON)
      (Case T-115/16)
      (2016/C 211/68)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sandvik Intellectual Property AB (Sandviken, Sweden) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unipapel Industria, Comercio y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word in standard characters ‘ADVEON’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 164 374

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2016 in Case R 738/2015-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  modify the contested decision such that the opposition is rejected and the designation of international registration IR 1164374 to the European Union is allowed;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, or;

                  —

                  order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings;

                  —

                  stay the proceedings until the European Court of Justice has submitted its decision in the procedure regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 in the matter Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek (Case C-654/15).

         Plea in law

                  —

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