title: Case C-190/03: Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Portuguese Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 184/17
declaration that, by failing to communicate measures trans-                   under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
posing into national law the provisions of Directive 1999/94/                 J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                           F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of                   on 5 June 2003, in which it:
the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or,
at any rate, by not informing the Commission fully thereof, the               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                     comply with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament
President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward,                         and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                      the environment by equipment for use outdoors, the Hellenic
19 June 2003, in which it:                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1)
                                                                                of that directive;
1.    Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of
      the European Communities the national implementing measures             2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      required by Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
      availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2            (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
      emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Portuguese Republic
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                                         against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-190/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/33)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                           (Third Chamber)                                    Communities on 9 May 2003 by the Portuguese Republic,
                                                                              represented by L. Fernandes, acting as Agent, and C. Botelho
                            of 5 June 2003                                    Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                              in Luxembourg.
in Case C-352/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                    nities v Hellenic Republic (1)                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     annul the decision of the Director-General of the Directo-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to                       rate General for Agriculture of the European Commission,
transpose Directive 2000/14/EC — Noise emission in the                              reference No AGR 05697, of 19 February 2003, with
                              environment)                                          regard to ‘Clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
                                                                                accounts pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                            (2003/C 184/32)                                         No 729/70 (1) and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 1258/1999 (2) — Inquiry AP/2000/10 into premia for
                                                                                beef, pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 3508/92 (3) (EEC)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                No 3887/92 (4) and (EEC) No 3886/92 (5) — Conciliation
                                                                                Procedure No 02/PT/202’;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)                            —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
In Case C-352/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent:                        Pleas in law and main arguments
N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt or by failing to notify to the Commission the laws,                     —     Lack of competence of the Commission inasmuch as it
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                       infringed Article 4 of its Rules of Procedure: The Director-
with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of                         General of the Directorate General for Agriculture does
the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws                          not have powers to adopt a measure such as the
of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the                          contested decision and he did not rely on any delegation
environment by equipment for use outdoors (OJ 2000 L 162,                           of powers enabling him so to do. Accordingly, he clearly
p. 1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                   acted ultra vires.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/18             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              2.8.2003
—   Error in law as a result of the misapplication of Article 6                      the Alentejo region in September 2000, are of no
    (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92: the Commission                               relevance to the application of the flat-rate correc-
    relies on the failure to carry out the minimum number                            tions applied to expenditure in respect of the 1999
    of on-the-spot checks required by the regulation with                            financial year. In the alternative, the Portuguese
    regard to the special premium for beef as the basis for                          Government takes the view that the irregularities
    applying the flat-rate correction to the expenditure                             alleged by the Commission are irrelevant, since
    incurred with regard to the special premium for male                             Portugal has complied and continues to comply with
    bovine animals. The Portuguese Government claims that:                           the rules relating to the identification of bovine
                                                                                animals.
    —     Portugal adopted an approach centring on holdings,
                                                                               —     The Commission further alleges, as the basis for
          devising an integrated application common to the
                                                                                applying the financial correction, that some animals
          various ‘animal’ aid schemes available under the
                                                                                bore producer markings bearing an identification
          EAGGF Guarantee section, in the context of which
                                                                                number which was not that accorded by the compe-
          the checks are carried out. In the year in question,
                                                                                tent authorities, and considers that the practice
          the minimum percentage of lawful applications were
                                                                                increases the risk that a premium might be paid
          checked on the spot during the retention period.
                                                                                more than once in respect of the same animal.
          Indeed, 50 % of the minimum number of checks
                                                                                Again in that respect the Commission erred in its
          on the animals to be carried out during the retention
                                                                                assessment of the relevant facts by failing to take
          period must be calculated having regard to all the
                                                                                account of the actual circumstances in which the
          ‘animal’ aid applications submitted in each year as
                                                                                said practice occurred.
          part of the integrated application rather than by
          reference to each aid scheme, as the Commission
          suggests.
                                                                        —      Breach of the obligation to provide reasons enshrined in
                                                                               Article 253 of the EC Treaty: the Commission's decision
                                                                               does not indicate which legislation was infringed by the
    —     Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in its                  conduct of the Portuguese authorities, nor does it show
          wording in force at the material time, did not                       how the conduct in question undermines the reliability of
          distinguish between the various aid schemes so far                   the checks but merely states that it does. The decision
          as concerned the obligation to check 5 % of the                      therefore does not fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
          ‘animal’ aid applications during the retention period,               That requirement is stricter where at issue is the adoption
          so that, contrary to the Commission's contention,                    of measures which impose sanctions on or entail adverse
          the Portuguese authorities acted in conformity with                  consequences, in particular in financial terms, for those to
          the provision in issue.                                              whom it is addressed, as in the present case. In those
                                                                               circumstances, fulfilment of the obligation to provide
                                                                               reasons is essential in order to protect the rights of
                                                                               defence of the person or body affected by the adverse
                                                                               consequences flowing from the measure.
    —     by applying in this case Article 6(5) of Regulation
          No 3887/92 as amended by Regulation (EC)                      (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the
          No 2801/99 (6), rather than the version in force at               financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special
          the material time, the Commission is applying retro-              Edition, 1970(I), p. 218).
          spectively a new provision, which is contrary to the          (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
          general principles of law common to the Member                    financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
          States.                                                           p. 103).
                                                                        (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992
                                                                            establishing an integrated administration and control system for
                                                                            certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).
                                                                        (4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
                                                                            laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administra-
                                                                            tion and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ
—   Error of assessment of the facts with regard to the                     1992 L 391, p. 36).
    expenditure declared by the Portuguese authorities for              (5) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992
    1999 concerning the premium for the maintenance of                      laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium
    the suckler cow herd:                                                   schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on
                                                                            the common organization of the market in beef and repealing
                                                                            Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992
                                                                            L 391, p. 20).
                                                                        (6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules
                                                                            for applying the integrated administration and control system for
    —     The alleged irregularities regarding the identification           certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 29).
          of the animals, which the Commission claims to
          have detected in checks carried out in holdings in


title: Case T-106/15: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision by OHIM — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/9

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-106/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision by OHIM - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 328/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: G Farrington, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 (Case R 2387/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case C-385/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Spain) — Isabel Elbal Moreno v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Article 157 TFEU — Directive 79/7/EEC — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Directive 2006/54/EC — Contributory retirement pension — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Indirect discrimination on grounds of sex)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Spain) — Isabel Elbal Moreno v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-385/11) (1)

   (Article 157 TFEU - Directive 79/7/EEC - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Directive 2006/54/EC - Contributory retirement pension - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Indirect discrimination on grounds of sex)
   2013/C 26/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Isabel Elbal Moreno

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Interpretation of Clause 4(1), of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) and of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Concept of employment condition — Contributory retirement pension calculated on the basis of the Spanish statutory rules and contributions paid by and on behalf of the employee — Discrimination against part-time workers

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State which requires a proportionally greater contribution period from part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are women, than from full-time workers for the former to qualify, if appropriate, for a contributory retirement pension in an amount reduced in proportion to the part-time nature of their work.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T-5/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Prohibition of the execution of ongoing trade contracts — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Manifest inadmissibility of the plea of illegality on which the application is based — Inadmissibility of the application)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/6

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. v Council
   (Case T-5/13 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Prohibition of the execution of ongoing trade contracts - Application for suspension of the operation of a measure - Manifest inadmissibility of the plea of illegality on which the application is based - Inadmissibility of the application)
   2013/C 298/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures, and, secondly, of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), in so far as that act makes it impossible to perform the contracts concluded by the applicant with partners established in the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-509/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/64

         Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)
   (Case T-509/13)
   2013/C 344/118
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH (Euskirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH (Bern, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 July 2013 (Case R 2211/2012-2) in such a way that opposition No B17963622 is rejected in its entirety, and

               —

               order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘NORTHWOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 20, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 412 776

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration with protection in respect of the European Union of the mark ‘NORTHBROOK’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-217/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/44

         Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)
   (Case T-217/12) (1)

   2014/C 45/77
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case T-805/16: Action brought on 16 November 2016 — IPPT PAN v Commission and REA

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/47

         Action brought on 16 November 2016 — IPPT PAN v Commission and REA
   (Case T-805/16)
   (2017/C 022/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki Polskiej Akademii Nauk (IPPT PAN) (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Le Berre, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission, Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission decision;

               —

               declare that the Commission erred in issuing debit note No 3241514040 (as reduced by credit note No 3233160082) and that the corresponding amount of EUR 67 984,13 is not due by the applicant;

               —

               declare that the Commission and REA shall pay to the applicant under the project SMART-NEST the amount of EUR 69 623,94 together with interest from the date of the decision;

               —

               declare that the applicant should not pay liquidated damages to the Commission with regard to the projects KMM-NOE and BOOSTING BALTIC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action for annulment based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 47 and 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on access to justice and access to the Ombudsman.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the contracts for projects KMM-NOE, BOOSTING BALTIC and SMART-NEST and of applicable Belgian law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Financial Regulation and of the Commission delegated Financial Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of power by the Commission.

         In support of the action for contractual remedies based on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the applicant has satisfied its obligation under article II.19.1 of the contracts for the projects KMM NOE and BOOSTING BALTIC.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not provided evidence in support of its claim.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not validly established its claim.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not implemented its contractual rights in good faith.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that liquidated damages claimed under Article II.30 are excessive and should be reduced under Article 1231 of the Belgian Civil Code.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that a payment is due to the applicant under project SMART-NEST as the remaining part of the refund of the applicant’s contribution to the Guarantee Fund.


title: Case C-439/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
   (Case C-439/17)
   (2017/C 347/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH

      Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 7(7) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (1) (hereinafter: ‘the directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components does not cover tobacco products which have a characterising flavour, within the meaning of the definition in Article 2(25) of the directive, on account of the flavourings contained in their components?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:
               Is Article 7(14) to be interpreted as meaning that the transitional provision covers only the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour under the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the directive or — also — the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components under the first sentence of Article 7(7) of the directive?

               3.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative or Question 2 is to be answered to the effect that Article 7(14) of the directive also covers the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components under the first sentence of Article 7(7) of the directive:
               How are the expressions ‘tobacco products with a characterising flavour’ and ‘particular product category’ in Article 7(14) of the directive to be construed?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 127, p. 1.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 April 1995 in Case T-393/94: P v. Commission of the European Communities (No need to give a decision)

text:
No C 159/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24 . 6 . 95
1 . the Japanese Shipowners ' Association and the European            2 , the costs are reserved.
     Community Shipowners ' Association are granted leave
     to intervene in support of the applicants;
2 . the Freight Transport Association, the Association des
     Utilisateurs des Transports de Fret and the European
     Council of Transport Users ASBL are granted leave to                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     intervene in support of the defendant;                                                     of 27 April 1995
                                                                      in Case T-393/94 : P v. Commission of the European
3 , the applicants ' request for confidential treatment of                                      Communities i 1 )
     certain parts of the file is granted;
                                                                                (No need to give a decision)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/51 )
4 , operation of Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Commission
     Decision 94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty                                (Language of the case: French)
     (IV/34.446 — Trans-Atlantic Agreement) , in so far as
     they prohibit the applicants from jointly exercising             In Case T-393/94, P, represented by Marie Vicelli and
     rate-making authority in respect of the inland portions          Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
     within the Community of through-intermodal transport             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 21
     services, is suspended until delivery ofthe final judgment       Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European
     of the Court of First Instance in the main action;               Communities ( Agent: J. Griesmar ) — application for the
                                                                      annulment of several decisions of the Commission reducing
5 . there is no need to rule on the application for suspension        the rates of reimbursement of hospital expenses to the
     of the operation of those Articles with regard to the            applicant — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
     conclusion of joint service contracts;                           composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and H. Kirschner
                                                                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; Registrar: H.Jung, made an
6 , the application for suspension of the operation of                order on 27 April 1995 of which the operative part is as
                                                                      follows :
     Article 5 of the Decision is dismissed;
7.   costs are reserved.                                               1 . there is no need to give a decision on the application;
(») OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                            2 , the defendant shall bear the costs.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 11 April 1995                              Action brought on 3 April 1995 by Tiziano Boggian against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gómez de Enterria v. European
                             Parliament                                                          ( Case T-92/95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/50 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/52
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gômez de Enterria, an official               An action against the Commission of the European
of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1 995 by
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis             Tiziano Boggian, an independent trader resident in
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. European Parliament               Montagnana ( Padua, Italy), represented by Ivone
 ( Agents : G. Garzon Clariana and M. Peter ) — application            Cacciavillani of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
for suspension of the implementation of the decision of the            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
President of the European Parliament of 19 December 1994               Albert I er .
retiring the applicant from her post pursuant to Article 50 of
the Staff Regulations — the President of the Court of First            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Instance made an order on 1 1 April 1995 , the operative part
 of which is as follows :
                                                                       — annul Commission Decision No C(91 ) 1725 of 29 July
                                                                              1991 (not published ), approving and granting EEC
 1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                       financing for the ' Operational programme for the


title: Case T-562/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — ADA Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/18

         Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — ADA Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)
   (Case T-562/11)
   2012/C 13/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ADA Cosmetic GmbH (Kehl, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2011 in Case R 2121/2010-4;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: ADA Cosmetic GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: International Registration of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘SYMBIOTIC CARE’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word and figurative marks ‘SYMBIOFLOR’ and ‘SYMBIOLACT’, international registration of the word mark ‘SYMBIOFEM’ and figurative mark ‘SYMBIOVITAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5, 29 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal disregarded the fact that the trade marks on which the opposition was based form a family of marks.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-167/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam): Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, v Inspire Art Ltd (Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in one Member State and carrying on its activities in another Member State — Application of the company law of the Member State of establishment intended to protect the interests of others)

text:
C 275/10                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            national court to ascertain, on the basis of a comprehensive
                                                                                assessment of national law, whether it is actually the case that
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                         only claimants who bring proceedings based on domestic
                                                                                constitutional law may rely on the ‘Anlaßfallwirkung’ and that
                                                                                the rules governing repayment of charges held to be incompatible
                        of 2 October 2003
                                                                                with domestic constitutional law are more favourable than those
                                                                                applicable to actions relating to taxes held to be contrary to
in Case C-147/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              Community law.
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Weber’s Wine World
Handels-GmbH, Ernestine Rathgeber, Karl Schlosser,                           4.   The principle of effectiveness precludes national legislation or a
Beta-Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission                                    national administrative practice which makes the exercise of the
                               Wien (1)                                           rights conferred by the Community legal order impossible in
                                                                                practice or excessively difficult by establishing a presumption of
(Indirect taxation — Duty on sales of alcoholic beverages —                       unjust enrichment on the sole ground that the duty was passed
 Incompatibility with Community law — Recovery of duty)                           on to third parties.
                         (2003/C 275/16)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-147/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                                          of 30 September 2003
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Weber’s Wine World Handels-GmbH, Ernestine Rathgeber,
Karl Schlosser, Beta-Leasing GmbH and Abgabenberufungs-                      in Case C-167/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
kommission Wien, on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC                from the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam): Kamer van
Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and paragraph 3 of the operative                  Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, v Inspire Art
part of the judgment of the Court in Case C-437/97 EKW and                                                    Ltd (1)
Wein & Co [2000] ECR I-1157, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the                      (Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and                       one Member State and carrying on its activities in another
S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F.                    Member State — Application of the company law of the
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              Member State of establishment intended to protect the
judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                    interests of others)
1.   The adoption by a Member State of rules, such as the Wiener                                       (2003/C 275/17)
     Abgabenordnung, fixing more restrictive procedural rules on
     recovery of sums levied but not due, in order to forestall the
     possible effects of a judgment of the Court holding that                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     Community law precludes the maintenance of a national duty,
     is contrary to Community law and, more particularly, to                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) only in so far                              in the European Court Reports)
     as it is aimed specifically at that duty, a point which falls to be
     determined by the national court.
2.   The rules of Community law on the recovery of sums levied but           In Case C-167/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
     not due are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude             EC by the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam (Netherlands) for a
     national rules which refuse — a point which falls to be                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     determined by the national court — repayment of a charge                court between Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor
     incompatible with Community law on the sole ground that the             Amsterdam, and Inspire Art Ltd, on the interpretation of
     charge was passed on to third parties, without requiring that           Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC, the Court, composed of:
     the degree of unjust enrichment that repayment of the charge            G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
     would entail for the taxable person be established.                     (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
                                                                             dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
3.   The principle of equivalence precludes national rules which lay         Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
     down less favourable procedural rules for claims for repayment          Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber,
     of a charge which has been levied though not due from the               Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
     aspect of Community law than those applicable to similar                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
     actions based on certain provisions of domestic law. It is for the      which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003              EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 275/11
1.   It is contrary to Article 2 of the Eleventh Council Directive              plc, established in London (United Kingdom) (represented by
     89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure                       D. Anderson, QC, and M. Chamberlain, barrister, instructed by
     requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State               S. Ramsay, solicitor), British Coal Corporation, established in
     by certain types of company governed by the law of another                 London (represented by D. Vaughan and D. Lloyd Jones, QC,
     State for national legislation such as the Wet op de Formeel               instructed by C. Mehta, solicitor), PowerGen (UK) plc, formerly
     Buitenlandse Vennootschappen (Law on Formally Foreign                      PowerGen plc, established in London (K.P.E. Lasok, QC,
     Companies) of 17 December 1997 to impose on the branch of                  instructed by P. Lomas, solicitor) and Commission of the
     a company formed in accordance with the laws of another                    European Communities (Agent: A. Whelan, assisted by
     Member State disclosure obligations not provided for by that               J.E. Flynn, barrister): Appeals against the judgment of the Court
     directive.                                                                 of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                                                                                Chamber) of 7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98 NALOO v
2.   It is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC for national                    Commission [2001] ECR II-515, seeking to have that judgment
     legislation such as the Wet op de Formeel Buitenlandse                     set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: National
     Vennootschappen to impose on the exercise of freedom of                    Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO), estab-
     secondary establishment in that State by a company formed in               lished in Newcastle upon Tyne (United Kingdom) represented
     accordance with the law of another Member State certain                    by M. Hoskins, barrister, instructed by A. Dowie, solicitor,
     conditions provided for in domestic company law in respect of              with an address for service in Luxembourg, the Court (Fifth
     company formation relating to minimum capital and directors’               Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
     liability. The reasons for which the company was formed in that            er, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
     other State, and the fact that it carries on its activities exclusively    A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     or almost exclusively in the Member State of establishment, do             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     not deprive it of the right to invoke the freedom of establishment         on 2 October 2003, in which it:
     guaranteed by the Treaty, save where the existence of an abuse
     is established on a case-by-case basis.
                                                                                1.     Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.                                                             7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98 NALOO v Commission in
                                                                                so far as it annuls:
                                                                                —     the part of Decision IV/E-3/NALOO of 27 April 1998
                                                                                in which the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                held that Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty was not
                                                                                applicable to the setting of royalties for coal extraction;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                              —     the part of that decision in which the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities rejected the complaint relating to
                                                                                the level of the royalties charged for coal extraction before
                         of 2 October 2003                                                   1 April 1990.
in Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P
and C-180/01 P: International Power plc, British Coal                           2.     For the rest, dismisses the appeals.
Corporation, PowerGen (UK) plc, Commission of the
European Communities v National Association of
         Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) (1)
                                                                                3.     Dismisses the application of the National Association of
                                                                                Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) in so far as it seeks:
(Appeal — ECSC Treaty — Rejection of a complaint alleging
discriminatory pricing and unreasonable royalties — Powers
                         of the Commission)
                                                                                —     annulment of the part of Decision IV/E-3/NALOO in
                                                                                which the Commission of the European Communities held
                          (2003/C 275/18)
                                                                                that Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty was not applicable to
                                                                                the setting of royalties for coal extraction.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                —     annulment of the part of that decision in which the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities rejected the
In Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P and                                       complaint relating to the level of the royalties charged for
C-180/01 P, International Power plc, formerly National Power                                 coal extraction before 1 April 1990.


title: Case T-759/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Campailla v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/33

         Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Campailla v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case T-759/16)
   (2017/C 078/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Massimo Campailla (Holtz, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 112 202 476.69, together with the associated and consubstantial penalties, amounting, on a monthly and cumulative basis, to 1.83 % as from December 1994 until the date of settlement, by way of compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant as established in the application in Case T-429/09, Campailla v Commission, which is already in the General Court’s possession;

               —

               uphold the applicant’s express request that a hearing be ordered in order to allow him to plead his case before the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of the present proceedings, including the lawyers’ fees which it obliged the applicant to incur and which will be quantified at the end of the proceedings;

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, corresponding to the constituent actions which were allegedly committed by the defendant and which give rise to its non-contractual liability.

               1.

               First plea in law, based on the unconditional receipt by the Registry of the Court of Justice of the action that had been directly brought by the applicant without being represented by a lawyer.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the failure to draw the applicant’s attention to the existence of a potential problem due to the lodging of an action without legal representation, and on the divergent treatment accorded to the applicant in comparison with other persons in an identical situation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on the penalty allegedly imposed on the applicant without any legal basis, in that his appeal was declared inadmissible.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular the denial of justice to which he was entitled, consisting of a deprival of human dignity at variance with Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging non-observance of the rights to effective legal protection and to a fair trial in that the defendant did not take into account the applicant’s particular situation and thus failed to take measures guaranteeing him observance of those rights.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging non-observance by the defendant of the right to good administration in unilaterally issuing its order dismissing the applicant’s appeal in Case C-265/11 P.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s property rights, in so far as the dispute underlying the proceedings initiated against the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union was designed to have the applicant’s property rights recognised in order to obtain compensation. In that regard, the applicant criticises the Court of Justice for having, in dismissing the appeal, confirmed and definitively rendered res judicata the false decision which was imposed by the General Court by its order in Case T-429/09.


title: Case T-655/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — FSL and Others v Commission

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/13

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — FSL and Others v Commission
   (Case T-655/11)
   2012/C 58/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: FSL Holdings (Antwerp, Belgium), Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp, Belgium) and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and C. Verdonck, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 12 October 2011 rendered in Case COMP/39.482 — Exotic Fruits — Bananas;

               —

               In subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the contested decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants of EUR 8 919 000 and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments raised by the applicants in the application before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and the rights of defence, as:

                           —

                           Documents obtained solely for the purpose of a national tax investigation were used;

                           —

                           Documents from other files were used; and

                           —

                           The immunity applicant has been illegally steered.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the defendant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of evidence, as well as the inability of the evidence to support the finding of an infringement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and of the 2006 fining guidelines (2) due to a manifest incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as of the mitigating circumstances, and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the calculation of the fine.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)


title: Case F-82/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Sickness insurance — Refusal of reimbursement of medical expenses — Laser therapy — No scientific validity of the treatment — Rules governing designation of an independent doctor — Competent medical association — Opinion of the independent doctor — Scope of the judicial review — Grounds of refusal of reimbursement — Internal provisions on sickness insurance — Objective of the laser therapy — Palliative effects on pain — Prior authorisation of the medical officer — Material harm — Premature conclusions — Non-pecuniary harm — Amount not stated — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/31

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB
      (Case F-82/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal of reimbursement of medical expenses - Laser therapy - No scientific validity of the treatment - Rules governing designation of an independent doctor - Competent medical association - Opinion of the independent doctor - Scope of the judicial review - Grounds of refusal of reimbursement - Internal provisions on sickness insurance - Objective of the laser therapy - Palliative effects on pain - Prior authorisation of the medical officer - Material harm - Premature conclusions - Non-pecuniary harm - Amount not stated - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 364/36)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers, and subsequently by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and J.-P. Minnaert, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and subsequently by: G. Faedo and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Annulment, firstly, of the decision not to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant for laser treatment undergone in 2007 and, secondly, of the consecutive and connected decisions taken by the bank in 2014.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of 4 December 2014, by which it refused to reimburse Mr Carlo De Nicola for the costs of FP3 laser therapy;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

         (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015, p. 59.


               1.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 323/4

         Criteria for the attribution of cases to chambers
   (2015/C 323/05)
   On 11 September 2015, pursuant to Article 4 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 13(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided to attribute cases, as soon as the application has been lodged, to the 1st Chamber, the 2nd Chamber or the 3rd Chamber alternately, on the basis of the order in which they were registered at the Registry and without prejudice to referrals to the full court or to a single judge.
   The President of the Tribunal may derogate from the rules for allocation above on account of the connection between cases or to ensure a balanced and consistent workload within the Tribunal.
   On the same grounds, the President of the Tribunal may decide to reattribute cases during the proceedings, after consulting the judges concerned and prior to the presentation of the preliminary report referred to in Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal.


title: Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-196/95 between Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-291/97 P)

text:
27 . 9 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 295/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                     Is subheading 'ex 0207 41 11 ' in sector 8 of the Annex to
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of                       Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3846/87 of 17 De
16 July 1997 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda                  cember 1987 establishing an agricultural product
             Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj                        nomenclature for export refunds ( OJ L 366, 24. 12 . 1987,
                                                                          p. 1 ), valid for the period from 21 June 1988 to
                          ( Case C-289/97 )
                                                                          16 January 1989, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                             ( 97/C 295/38 )                              term 'quarters' ( of chicken) also includes cuts of poultry
                                                                          not yet wholly separated from each other ('posteriori') as
                                                                          described more precisely in the grounds of this order ( J )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 1 ) Divided at right angles to the backbone, not longitudinally.
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice
di Pace di Genova (Magistrate's Court, Genoa ), of 16 July
1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eridania SpA
against Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj
on the following questions :
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                          Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by
1 . Is Regulation (EC ) No 1580/96 (») of 30 July 1996,                   the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Communities on 16 August 1996, and in particular                    Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      Article 1 ( f) thereof, valid, above all having regard to                                  European Communities
      the arguments set out in paragraph 3 of the section of
      this order entitled ' Law'?                                                                    ( Case C-291/97 P)
                                                                                97/C 295/40 )
2. If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', is
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ( 2 ) of 30 June 1981 ,               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       Communities on 1 July 1981 , and in particular,                    European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ) thereof as subsequently         Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      amended, valid, and in consequence is Regulation ( EC )             European Communities was brought before the Court of
      No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 valid, with particular                   Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
       reference to Article 1 ( f), especially in the light of the         by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, represented by Vincent
       arguments set out in paragraph 4 of the section of this             Lurquin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       order entitled ' Law '?
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                           Fort Rheinsheim .
(') OJ L 206 , 16 . 8 . 1996 , p . 9 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                — set aside the judgment appealed against,
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in
the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v.
                   Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                              — declare the original application admissible and well
                                                                                founded .
                           ( Case C-290/97 )
                              ( 97/C 295/39 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    — Irregularity         of    the   procedure     establishing     the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate                           composition of the Invalidity Committee: the Court of
of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 26 June                      First Instance wrongly considered that the procedure
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                               whereby the President of the Court of Justice appoints,
4 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           on his own initiative, a doctor to represent the staff
 Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt                           member on the Invalidity Committee should not
 Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:                                        involve the consultation of that staff member. Whilst it
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27 . 9 . 97
     may be accepted that the act by which the President                   who — for reasons outside their control — have not
     appoints a doctor to represent the applicant on the                   delivered milk throughout the necessary qualification
     Committee is itself an administrative act, the acts                   period for the award of quota (1 March 1994 to
     which precede it or directly follow from it must                      1 January 1995 ) are refused a quota ?
     involve full consultation of the other party.
     Consequently, the Commission was under an
     obligation to inform the applicant of its decision to           (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p . 40.
     refer the matter to the President of the Court of
     Justice. Once that appointment had taken place, the
     Commission was also obliged to communicate a copy
     of the appointment order made by the President of the
     Court of Justice.
— Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 9 of                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
     Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials: the             Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the             17 June 1997, in the case of The Queen against
     applicant was in a position to exercise the rights              ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment (2 ) Minister of
     conferred on her by that provision.                             Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
                                                                     Standley and Others (2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
                                                                                Intervener: National Farmers ' Union
                                                                                ( Case C-293/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/42 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsratt
by order of that court of 23 July 1997 in the case brought
    by Kjell Karlsson and Others against Jordbruksverket
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Case C-292/97)                             European Communities by an order of the Divisional
                          ( 97/C 295/41 )                            Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 17 June 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 1997, for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment ( 2 ) Minister of
European Communities by order of the Regeringsratt                   Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 July 1997, which                Standley and Others ( 2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
was received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1997, for             Intervener: National Farmers' Union, on the following
a preliminary ruling in the case brought by Kjell Karlsson           questions:
and Others against Jordbruksverket on the following
questions:
                                                                      1 . Does Council Directive 91 /676/EEC (*) of 12 December
Do Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                      1991 concerning the protection of waters against
1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk                  pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
products sector ('), Articles 5 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty              ('the Nitrates Directive') require Member States, in
and the fundamental Community law principle of equal                       accordance, in particular, with Articles 2 (j ) and 3 ( 1 )
treatment permit national provisions of a State which                      and Annex I thereof, to identify surface freshwaters as
acceded to the Union on 1 January 1995 under which:                        'waters affected by pollution', and then to designate as
                                                                           vulnerable zones in accordance with Article 3 (2 )
                                                                           thereof all known areas of land which drain into such
1 . for producers who have not altered their production,                   waters and which contribute to pollution:
      average deliveries in 1991 , 1992 and 1993 are adopted
      as the basis for the award of a milk quota,
                                                                            (i)  where those waters contain a concentration of
2. producers who have commenced or increased                                     nitrates in excess of 50 mg/1 ( being the
      production of milk between 1 January 1991 and                              concentration of nitrates laid down by Annex I to
      31 December 1994 must accept a reduction in milk                           the Nitrates Directive, by reference to Directive
      quota, unlike milk producers whose production                              75/440/EEC (2) and the Member State is satisfied
      circumstances have not altered in that period and                          that the discharge of nitrogen compounds
      producers of ecologically produced milk, and that                          from agricultural sources makes a 'significant
                                                                                contribution' to this overall concentration of
      reduction is determined differently for producers who
      have commenced production than for those who have                          nitrates and, if so, is a Member State entitled to
                                                                                be so satisfied if it has reason to believe that the
      increased production,
                                                                                contribution to this overall concentration of
                                                                                nitrates, of nitrogen compounds discharged from
 3 . producers who delivered milk before the State's                             agricultural sources, is greater than de minimis or
      accession to the Community's milk quota system but                         some other amount or degree of contribution,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case T-144/96: Y. v. European Parliament (Officials - Criminal conviction - Disciplinary proceedings - removal from post - Statement of reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

text:
26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 299/31
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 17 July 1998
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
in Case T-111/96: ITT Promedia NV v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)                             in Case T-144/96: Y. v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Criminal conviction Ð Disciplinary
(Competition Ð Actions for annulment Ð Rejection of a              proceedings Ð removal from post Ð Statement of reasons
complaint Ð Article 86 of the EC Treaty Ð Abuse of a                    Ð Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
dominant position Ð Actions before national courts Ð
Right of access to the courts Ð Claim for performance of                                   (98/C 299/50)
an agreement Ð Manifest error of assessment Ð
Obligation to carry out an examination Ð Error of                                 (Language of the case: French)
    characterisation Ð Inadequate statement of reasons)
                                                                   In Case T-144/96: Y., a former official of the European
                         (98/C 299/49)                             Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by GeÂrard
                                                                   Collin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
                                                                   Cessange, against the European Parliament (Agents: Hans
               (Language of the case: English)                     Krück and Hugo Vandenberghe) Ð application for the
                                                                   annulment of the disciplinary decision of the Parliament of
                                                                   19 January 1996 removing the applicant from his post Ð
                                                                   the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                   J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
In Case T-111/96: ITT Promedia NV, established at
                                                                   Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July
Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Ivo Van Bael, Peter
                                                                   1998, in which it:
L'Ecluse and Kris Van Hove, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe, against the Commission            1. dismisses the application;
of the European Communities (Agents: Wouter Wils and
Rosemary Caudwell), supported by Belgacom SA,                      2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
established in Brussels, represented by Jules Stuyck and
subsequently by Hermann De Bauw and Paul Maeyaert,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt Ð application for annulment of
a Commission decision definitively rejecting the heads of
the applicant's complaint which allege that Belgacom SA
had initiated vexatious litigation against it before the
Belgian courts and had requested the transfer by it to               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Belgacom SA of its industrial and commercial know-how                                     of 16 July 1998
in accordance with contractual commitments between the
two parties, those acts allegedly constituting infringements       in Case T-156/96 Claus Jensen v. Commission of the
of Article 86 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court of First                                  European Communities (1)
Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition),                   (Officials Ð Pay Ð Installation allowance Ð Recovery of
composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K.                               undue payments)
Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                  (98/C 299/51)
17 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-156/96 Claus Jensen, a former temporary
1. dismisses the application;                                      servant of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                   residing at Waterloo (Belgium), represented by Marc-
                                                                   Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue
                                                                   de Nassau, against the Commission of the European
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay           Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Christine
     those incurred by the Commission and Belgacom.                Berardis-Kayser and Florence Clotuche) Ð application for
                                                                   annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 November
                                                                   1995 to recover the amount paid to the applicant by way
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.                                           of installation allowance, following termination of his
                                                                   contract as a temporary servant and, in the alternative, a
                                                                   claim for damages Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
                                                                   composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W.
                                                                   Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a


title: Case T-794/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Packaging for ice cream cornets)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/42

         Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Packaging for ice cream cornets)
   (Case T-794/16)
   (2017/C 022/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Packaging for ice cream cornets’ — Community design No 002 343 244-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 1144/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare invalid RCD No. 002343244-0001 ‘Bobo Cornet’; and

               —

               order EUIPO and Elka Zaharieva to bear the costs of Solen in relation to the proceedings before the General Court and in relation to the administrative phase of the proceedings, in particular the invalidity and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002,

               —

               Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

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


title: Case T-177/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          23.8.2003
Action brought on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Management                          tance tenders, the applicants claim that the Commission incor-
Consultants, Patrick Mc Mullin and Seamus O'Grady                          rectly awarded the contract to this consortium after the second
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      evaluation took place.
                          (Case T-160/03)                                  The applicants also claim that the Commission allowed the
                                                                           second evaluation committee to consider previous experience
                                                                           in TACIS projects in breach of paragraph 3 of Annex III of
                          (2003/C 200/43)                                  regulation 1279/1996 and discredited the previous successful
                                                                           work of the applicants.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Manage-
ment Consultants, Bray, Ireland, Patrick Mc Mullin, Bray,
Ireland and Seamus O'Grady, Bray, Ireland, represented by                  Action brought on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm
Mr B. O'Conner, Solicitor and Mr I. Carreño, lawyer.                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-177/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     require the Commission to pay the Applicants damages in                                       (2003/C 200/44)
      respect of the loss suffered by reason of the Commission's
      failure to properly manage the tender procedure of TACIS                                (Language of the case: German)
      project FDRUS 9902, all sums to be increased with
      compensatory interest, to be calculated as part of the
      damage, from the day on which the damage materialised;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
—     order default interest payable at the appropriate rate on            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the Applicant's claim for damages;                                   European Communities on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, Belgium, represented by C. Illig, lawyer.
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to appoint the applicant to adminis-
                                                                                trative grade A4 in the promotion scale with retroactive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  effect from 1.1.2002;
                                                                           —     find, in the alternative, that the failure to grant seven
The applicants were among the ten short-listed companies
                                                                                additional points when determining the seniority of the
invited to submit a tender for the TACIS project FDRUS
                                                                                applicant was unlawful and that this error had an effect
9902. Due to a conflict of interest between another compe-
                                                                                on the selection resulting from a comparative assessment
titor and a member of the evaluation committee, a first
                                                                                of qualifications, as a result of which the applicant is,
evaluation in the latter's favour was cancelled. A second
                                                                                with regard to service-, salary- and benefit rights, less well
evaluation followed, which resulted in the contract to imple-
                                                                                off than if he had been upgraded to the A4 as of
ment the TACIS project being signed with this competitor.
                                                                                1.1.2002;
The applicants claim that the Commission acted unlawfully                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
during the tender procedure FDRUS 9902. They submit they
have been unfairly denied the implementation of this contract
and have suffered substantial financial loss and damage
including the loss sustained in the tender procedure, loss of
profit, lost of profile and harm to their reputation.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit the Commission should, after cancelling
the first tender evaluation, have excluded the other consor-               The applicant relies on the allegedly erroneous application of
tium's tender from the second evaluation or have sanctioned it.            the Commission's promotion guidelines and on breach of the
                                                                           principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and adminis-
                                                                           trative legitimacy.
Due to the uncompliance of this consortium with the
Commission's rules and regulations governing technical assis-


title: Case C-112/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Telecommunication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Equal treatment — Determination of the number of digital radio frequencies to be granted to each operator which already has analogue radio frequencies — Taking into consideration analogue radio frequencies used unlawfully — Correspondence between the number of analogue radio frequencies held and the number of digital radio frequencies obtained)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
   (Case C-112/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Telecommunication services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Equal treatment - Determination of the number of digital radio frequencies to be granted to each operator which already has analogue radio frequencies - Taking into consideration analogue radio frequencies used unlawfully - Correspondence between the number of analogue radio frequencies held and the number of digital radio frequencies obtained))
   (2017/C 309/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Persidera SpA

      Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

      Intervening parties: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI), Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI), Elettronica Industriale SpA, Television Broadcasting System Spa, Premiata Ditta Borghini e Stocchetti di Torino Srl, Rete A SpA, Centro Europa 7 Srl, Prima TV SpA, Sky Italia Srl, Elemedia SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, for the purposes of converting existing analogue channels into digital networks, takes into consideration unlawfully managed analogue channels, where that leads to an unfair competitive advantage being prolonged, or even reinforced.

               2.

               The principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, on the basis of the same conversion criterion, leads to a proportionately larger reduction in the number of digital networks assigned compared with the number of analogue channels operated to the detriment of one operator compared to its competitors, unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to its objective. The continuity of television output constitutes a legitimate objective capable of justifying such a difference in treatment. However, a provision which would lead to operators already present on the market being assigned a number of digital radio frequencies which is greater than the number that is sufficient to ensure the continuity of their television output would go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and would, thus, be disproportionate.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-479/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/50

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-479/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 2010/420/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON89034xNK603 (MON-89Ø34-3xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or essentially the same as those raised in Case T-478/10 Département du Gers v Commission.