title: Case T-309/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — CW v Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Duty of the administration to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Provisional distancing measures — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Responsibility — Claim for damages — Decision rejecting the administrative complaint — Distortion of the evidence — Error of law)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — CW v Parliament
   (Case T-309/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Duty of the administration to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Provisional distancing measures - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Responsibility - Claim for damages - Decision rejecting the administrative complaint - Distortion of the evidence - Error of law))
   (2016/C 462/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: CW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015, CW v Parliament (F-124/13, EU:F:2015:23), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015, CW v Parliament (F-124/13);

               2.

               Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-30/13: Action brought on 22 January 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/27

         Action brought on 22 January 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
   (Case T-30/13)
   2013/C 79/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2012 in Case R 731/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — Community trade mark application No 7 481 252

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was rejected

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


title: Case C-345/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 10 August 2006 — Gottfried Heinrich

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 10 August 2006 — Gottfried Heinrich
   (Case C-345/06)
   (2006/C 281/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gottfried Heinrich
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do documents within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) include acts which are required to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 254 EC?

               2.

               Do regulations or parts thereof have binding force if, contrary to the requirement of Article 254(2) EC, they are not published in the Official Journal of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 43.


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-35/04 (1)

   (2005/C 45/40)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 24 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-35/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-407/03: Commission of the European Communities against Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-407/03: Commission of the European Communities against Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora)
   (2004/C 228/28)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-407/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and M. Huttunen) against Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimares-Purokoski) — application for a declaration that, by failing to provide a sufficient degree of legal certainty in its national law relating to the obligation to carry out for every project, including those subject to an environmental impact assessment, the appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to provide a sufficient degree of legal certainty in its national law relating to the obligation to carry out an appropriate assessment for every project, including those subject to an environmental impact assessment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11. 2003.


title: Case C-443/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Successive marketing of two medicinal products containing, wholly or partially, the same active ingredient — Combination of active ingredients, one of which has already been marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient — Whether it is possible to obtain a number of certificates on the basis of the same patent and two marketing authorisations)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi
   (Case C-443/12) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Successive marketing of two medicinal products containing, wholly or partially, the same active ingredient - Combination of active ingredients, one of which has already been marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient - Whether it is possible to obtain a number of certificates on the basis of the same patent and two marketing authorisations)
   2014/C 52/30
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

      Defendant: Sanofi

      Intervening party: Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a supplementary protection certificate — Concept of ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Possibility of granting the certificate for each medicinal product where there is a patent covering a number of medicinal products.

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding that patent holder from obtaining — on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which is not protected as such by the patent — a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-142/94 and T-143/94: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2009 — Roche v Council and Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2009 — Roche v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-142/94 and T-143/94) (1)

   2009/C 153/94

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 174, 25.6.1994.


title: Case T-41/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — SIMS — École de ski internationale v OHIM — SNMSF (esf école du ski français) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark esf école du ski français — Absolute grounds for refusal — State emblem — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6ter of the Paris Convention — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — SIMS — École de ski internationale v OHIM — SNMSF (esf école du ski français)
   (Case T-41/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark esf école du ski français - Absolute grounds for refusal - State emblem - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6ter of the Paris Convention - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 186/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski — École de ski internationale (SIMS — École de ski internationale) (Albertville, France) (represented by: L. Raison-Rebufat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Folliard-Monguiral and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF) (Meylan, France) (represented by: J.-P. Stouls, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 235/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between the Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski — École de ski internationale (SIMS — École de ski internationale) and the Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski — École de ski internationale (SIMS — École de ski internationale) to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               orders the Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-231/07 and C-232/07: Order of the Court of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Tiercé Ladbroke SA (C-231/07) and Derby SA (C-232/07) v Belgian State (Rules of Procedure — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(B)(d)(3) — Exemptions — Concepts of deposit accounts and of payments — Refusal of exemption)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/6

         Order of the Court of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Tiercé Ladbroke SA (C-231/07) and Derby SA (C-232/07) v Belgian State
   (Joined Cases C-231/07 and C-232/07) (1)

   (Rules of Procedure - First subparagraph of Article 104(3) - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(B)(d)(3) - Exemptions - Concepts of ‘deposit accounts’ and of ‘payments’ - Refusal of exemption)
   (2008/C 183/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)
   Parties

      Applicants: Tiercé Ladbroke SA and Derby SA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption in relation to transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments — Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or forms of gambling — Supply of services by buralistes responsible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors — Whether eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)
   Operative part of the order
   The terms ‘transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments’ used in Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip, that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, sole assumption of liability as regards the client for management of the funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and receipt of remuneration in the form of commission from the client as remuneration for that activity.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-130/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Council v Simpson (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Advancement in grade — Classification in grade — Decision not to award the person concerned grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Distortion of the evidence)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Council v Simpson
   (Case T-130/14) (1)

   ((Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Advancement in grade - Classification in grade - Decision not to award the person concerned grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Distortion of the evidence))
   (2015/C 414/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:201), and seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:201), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused the request of Mr Erik Simpson which sought an upgrade to grade AD 9 on the ground that he had passed Competition EPSO/AD/113/07 and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all the costs (paragraphs 1 and 3 of the operative part of that judgment);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-338/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Getty Images v OHIM (PHOTOS.COM) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PHOTOS.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — No distinctiveness acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Getty Images v OHIM (PHOTOS.COM)
   (Case T-338/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PHOTOS.COM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - No distinctiveness acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 9/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Getty Images (US), Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1831/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PHOTOS.COM as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Getty Images (US), Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-361/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2014 in Case T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10: Peter McBride and others v European Commission

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/14

         Appeal brought on 25 July 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2014 in Case T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10: Peter McBride and others v European Commission
   (Case C-361/14 P)
   2014/C 339/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Szmytkowska, Agents, B. Doherty, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Peter McBride, Hugh McBride, Mullglen Ltd, Cathal Boyle, Thomas Flaherty, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Patrick Fitzpatrick, Eamon McHugh, Eugene Hannigan, Larry Murphy and Brendan Gill

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2014 in Joined cases T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10 Peter McBride and others v European Commission

               —

               reject the annulment action, and in any case the first plea

               —

               or in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for adjudication on the pleas raised before it on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has not ruled, and

               —

               order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the appeal and the procedure before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’ or ‘the Treaty’) in conjunction with Article 263 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness, the principle of conferral of powers, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of continuity of the legal order, the temporal application of law, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principles governing succession of legal rules, insofar as it annulled certain Commission decisions intended to carry out the Commission’s obligations under the judgments in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-241/03, Boyle and others v Commission and Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P, Flaherty and others v Commission. The contested judgment finds that the Commission had a duty to take the necessary measures to comply with those judgments but that it had no competence to do so.

               Second, the General Court failed to give proper reasons for its judgment and to respond to a central argument of the Commission (as well as a question about admissibility in one case). It thus breached Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.


title: Case C-342/08: Action brought on 24 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/17

         Action brought on 24 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-342/08)
   (2008/C 285/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure the elaboration of an external emergency plan for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that the elaboration of external emergency plans for measures to be taken outside the establishments covered by Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC is a fundamental requirement of that directive. The Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive in so far as it has not drawn up such plans for 59 establishments situated on its territory while, according to the wording of the directive, those plans should have been drawn up at the latest 3 years after the time-limit for transposing the directive had elapsed, that is on 3 February 2002.

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.

      (2)  Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 345, p. 97).


title: Case C-595/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(6) — Special investment funds — Meaning — Investments in immovable property — Management of special investment funds — Meaning — Actual management of a property)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs
   (Case C-595/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(6) - Special investment funds - Meaning - Investments in immovable property - Management of special investment funds - Meaning - Actual management of a property))
   (2016/C 048/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that investment companies such as the companies at issue in the main proceedings, in which capital is pooled by several investors who bear the risk connected with the management of the assets assembled in those companies with a view to purchasing, owning, managing and selling immovable property in order to derive a profit therefrom which will be distributed to all unit-holders in the form of a dividend, those unit-holders benefiting also from an increase in the value of their holding, may be regarded as ‘special investment funds’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the Member State concerned has made those companies subject to specific State supervision.

               2.

               Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management’ which appears in that provision does not cover the actual management of the immovable property of a special investment fund.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case C-500/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova — Italy) — Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media (Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 4 EC, 10 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC — National legislation prohibiting advertisements for medical or surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova — Italy) — Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media
   (Case C-500/06) (1)

   (Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 4 EC, 10 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC - National legislation prohibiting advertisements for medical or surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature)
   (2008/C 223/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Giudice di Pace di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corporación Dermoestética SA

      Defendant: To Me Group Advertising Media

      Intervener: Cliniche Futura Srl
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Genova — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC — Compatibility of a national provision prohibiting the broadcasting of advertisements on national television networks for medical and surgical treatments carried out in private health care establishments and limiting expenditure on advertising to 5 % of income for the previous year
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 48 EC and 55 EC, must be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it prohibits the broadcasting of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments on national television networks while at the same time permitting such advertisements, subject to certain conditions, on local television networks.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-494/07: Action brought on 12 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/10

         Action brought on 12 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-494/07)
   (2008/C 8/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Recchia)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to

               —

               declare, that, by failing to take the measures necessary to implement correctly its obligations under Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 (in conjunction with Annex IV) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main argument
   The Commission has examined the compatibility of the measures taken by the Hellenic Republic to transpose Directive 92/43/EEC.
   Its review showed that certain provisions of the directive have not been fully implemented and/or have not been transposed correctly.
   In particular, the Commission considers that the use of the phrase ‘reasons of essential public interest’ in the Greek legislation instead of the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ referred to in Article 6(4) of the directive, is an incorrect transposition of the provision in question, because it widens the possibility of use of the derogation provided for and is not compatible with the need to interpret it narrowly.
   The Commission also considers that the addition, in the Greek legislation, of the words ‘of particular economic significance’ to the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ contained in Article 6(4) of the directive, bringing into operation the exception provided for in that provision, constitutes an incorrect transposition of Article 6(4) of the directive, because it adds further possibilities of derogation.
   Lastly, the Commission ascertained that, as the Greek authorities acknowledge, the provisions of the Greek legislation transposing Articles 12 and 13 do not refer to the Annex which specifies their scope of application, so that the above articles of the directive have not been correctly transposed.
   The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic has not correctly implemented Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 of the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

      (1)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992.


title: Case T-77/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  25 November 2005  — Balduini v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2005 — Balduini v Commission
   (Case T-77/05) (1)

   (2006/C 22/51)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Joined Cases C-147/11 and C-148/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop (C-147/11), Margita Punakova (C-148/11) (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of permanent residence — Social assistance benefits — Care of a child — Period of residence completed before the State of origin acceded to the European Union)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/8

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop (C-147/11), Margita Punakova (C-148/11)
      (Joined Cases C-147/11 and C-148/11) (1)

      (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of permanent residence - Social assistance benefits - Care of a child - Period of residence completed before the State of origin acceded to the European Union)
      (2012/C 331/11)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

         Defendants: Lucja Czop (C-147/11), Margita Punakova (C-148/11)

         Re:

      References for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of residence of a Polish national who moved to the United Kingdom prior to the accession of Poland, who, after accession, was self employed for less than a year and who is the primary carer of a child who entered general education after the period she was in self-employment

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as conferring on the person who is the primary carer of a migrant worker’s or former migrant worker’s child who is attending educational courses in the host Member State a right of residence in that State, although that provision cannot be interpreted as conferring such a right on the person who is the primary carer of the child of a person who is self-employed.
      Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a European Union citizen who is a national of a Member State which recently acceded to the European Union may, pursuant to that provision, rely on a right of permanent residence where he or she has resided in the host Member State for a continuous period of more than five years, part of which was completed before the accession of the former State to the European Union, provided that the residence was in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in Case T-128/98: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Air transport — Airport management — Applicable regulation — Regulation No 17 and Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory fees)

text:
21.4.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 8 November 2000
                                                                                of 12 December 2000
in Case T-44/97: Piera Ghignone and Others v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case T-128/98: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Remuneration — Posting to a third country —
Adjustment of weightings — Retroactive effect — Recovery
                          of overpayment)
                                                                            (Competition — Air transport — Airport management —
                                                                            Applicable regulation — Regulation No 17 and Regulation
                          (2001/C 118/95)                                   (EEC) No 3975/87 — Abuse of dominant position —
                                                                                Discriminatory fees)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/96)
In Case T-44/97: Piera Ghignone, Helga Glassl, Colette Jemaa,
Enrica Massucco, Giovanni Di Maio, René Franquinet, Klaus-
Dietrich Jagstaidt, Michel Perillat, officials of the Council of the
European Union, residing in Geneva (Switzerland), Jacques                                       (Language of the case: French)
Brodin, an official of the Council of the European Union,
residing in Tannay (Switzerland), Servatius van Thiel, official
of the Council of the European Union, residing in Nyon
(Switzerland), Ettore Zamproni, official of the Council of the
European Union, residing in Bellevue (Switzerland), Monique                 In Case T-128/98: Aéroports de Paris, established in Paris
Weygandt, Léo Geboers, David Hollister, officials of the                    (France), represented by H. Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
Council of the European Union, residing in New York (United                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
States of America), represented initially by J.-N. Louis, T. Dema-          398 Route d’Esch, against Commission of the European
seure and A. Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, and then by Mr Louis              Communities (Agents: represented initially by J.F. Crespo
and Mr Demaseure, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Carrillo and G. Charrier and subsequently by L. Pignataro and
at Société de gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,                   B. Geneste) — application for annulment of Commission
against Council of the European Union (Agents: J.P. Jacqué and              Decision 98/513/EC of 11 June 1998 relating to a proceeding
T. Blanchet) — application for annulment of the applicants’                 under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/35.613 — Alpha Flight
salary slips for May and June 1996 — the Court of First                     Services/Aéroports de Paris) (OJ 1998 L 230, p. 10) —
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,               the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
J. Azizi and A. Potocki, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for              K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which                 González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
it:                                                                         ment on 12 December 2000, in which it:
1.    removes from the case-file the opinions of the legal service of       1.    Dismisses the application.
      the Council, produced by the applicants in annexes 5 and 10
      to the reply;
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
2.    dismisses the application;                                                  incurred by the Commission and by the intervener, Alfa Flight
                                                                                Services.
3.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case T-775/14: Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/39

      Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
      (Case T-775/14)
      (2015/C 073/50)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘ABTRONIC’ — Application No 8 534 811

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 2060/2013-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case C-283/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa — Republic of Poland) — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Taking of evidence — Examination of a witness by the requested court upon application by the requesting court — Payment of witness expenses)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa — Republic of Poland) — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o.
   (Case C-283/09) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Taking of evidence - Examination of a witness by the requested court upon application by the requesting court - Payment of witness expenses)
   2011/C 103/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Artur Weryński

      Defendant: Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) — Hearing of a witness by a court of a Member State at the request of a court of another Member State — Witness expenses — Possibility for the requested court to demand from the requesting court payment of an advance for the witness heard

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 14 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a requesting court is not obliged to pay an advance to the requested court for the expenses of a witness or to reimburse the expenses paid to the witness examined.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case C-321/16: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 — Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue
   (Case C-321/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 - Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2017/C 063/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Dublin District Court

      Criminal proceedings against

   Owen Pardue

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Dublin District Court (Ireland) by decision of 27 May 2016.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.6.2016


title: Case C-329/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2015 — ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2015 — ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
   (Case C-329/15)
   (2015/C 320/22)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase electrical energy produced in combination with the production of heat, as laid down in Article 9a(8) of the Law of 10 April 1997 on energy law, in the version in force in 2006, adopted on the basis of Article 1, point 13, of the Law of 4 March 2005 amending the Law on energy law and the Law on environmental protection law (Dz.U. 2005, No 62, item 552), constitutes State aid?

               2.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that an energy undertaking treated as an emanation of a Member State which was obliged to fulfil the obligation classified as State aid may rely on infringement of that provision in proceedings before a national court?

               3.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to Questions 1 and 2, must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the conflict of the obligation arising from national law with Article 107 TFEU rules out the possibility of imposing a financial penalty on an undertaking which has failed to fulfil that obligation?


title: Case T-17/10: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — Steinberg v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to funding decisions for grants to Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations under the ‘Partnership for Peace’ programme and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/44

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — Steinberg v Commission
   (Case T-17/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to funding decisions for grants to Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations under the ‘Partnership for Peace’ programme and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 26/86
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerald Steinberg (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: T. Asserson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and C. ten Dam, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2009) 3914 of 15 May 2009, partially refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to funding decisions for grants to Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations under the ‘Partnership for Peace’ programme and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               2.

               Mr Gerald Steinberg shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-284/08: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/35

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-284/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/67

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case F-3/07: Action brought on 18 January 2007 — Moschonaki v EUROFOUND

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/43

         Action brought on 18 January 2007 — Moschonaki v EUROFOUND
   (Case F-3/07)
   (2007/C 56/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Ballybrack, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the director of EUROFOUND not to authorise the applicant's mission to take part in the meeting of 30 and 31 March 2006 of the Assembly of Agency Staff Committees,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant asserts principally that in refusing her mission application to attend the meeting of 30 and 31 March 2006 of the Assembly of Agency Staff Committees, EUROFOUND infringed Articles 24b and 9(3) of the Staff Regulations and the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex 2 to the Staff Regulations, which lay down freedom of association and trade union representation, the consultation and management role of the Staff Committee and the prohibition on any disadvantages accruing to a member of staff by virtue of carrying out the functions of members of the Staff Committee.
   The applicant relies moreover on the infringement of Article 110(4) of the Staff Regulations and Article 126 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants. It follows from these provisions that regular consultations must take place between the administrations of the institutions and agencies, with the participation of Staff Committees, in order to ensure a uniform application of the Staff Regulations.
   It is claimed that the contested decision also infringes the principle of good management and sound administration.


title: Case C-270/15 P: Appeal lodged on 8 June 2015 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 in Case T-538/11 Belgium v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/14

         Appeal lodged on 8 June 2015 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 in Case T-538/11 Belgium v Commission
   (Case C-270/15 P)
   (2015/C 254/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, L. Van Den Hende, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      First ground: The General Court errs in its legal reasoning and disregards the obligation to state reasons incumbent upon it in respect of the existence of an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               (a)

                  First part: The General Court errs in its legal reasoning and disregards the obligation to state reasons, particularly inasmuch as it proceeds on the assumption that, whenever the public authorities impose on specific undertakings a legislative or administrative obligation, the costs pertaining to that obligation must automatically be imposed also on the undertakings in question, without the public authorities being able to intervene in any way and regardless of the purpose of the measure and the link with the exercise of public powers. Given that that assumption has to be rejected, the General Court fails in any way to explain why the costs of the TSE tests would constitute a charge ‘normally’ included in the budget of an undertaking. The General Court also disregards the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 53 thereof, in particular in that it does not examine a number of arguments and precedents put forward by the appellant or fails to appreciate the relevance thereof.

               (b)

                  Second part: The General Court errs in its legal reasoning in so far as it regards the presence or absence of harmonisation legislation as wholly irrelevant for State-aid purposes. The General Court thus also disregards its obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 53 thereof, in not responding to the arguments raised by the Kingdom of Belgium.

               (c)

                  Third part: The General Court errs in its legal reasoning when, in the judgment under appeal, it appears to suggest that the Kingdom of Belgium fails to state why the presence or absence of overcompensation would be of legal relevance to the existence of an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. The judgment under appeal also displays erroneous legal reasoning in so far as it appears to insinuate that the argument lacks an adequate factual basis.

      Second ground: The General Court errs in its legal reasoning and disregards the obligation to state reasons incumbent upon it in respect of the application of the selectivity requirement within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court errs in its legal reasoning in so far as it asserts in a generalised manner that all undertakings that must have mandatory inspections carried out in order for them to be able to place their goods on the market or to sell them are, by definition, in a ‘comparable factual and legal situation’. At the very least, the General Court disregards the obligation to state reasons incumbent upon it by failing entirely to explain why all of those undertakings would be in a ‘comparable factual and legal situation’ from a State-aid perspective, and by leaving unanswered the reservations expressed by the Kingdom of Belgium.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-236/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio): Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Novel foods — Placing on the market — Safety assessment — Simplified procedure — Substantial equivalence to existing foods — Foods produced from genetically modified maize — Presence of residues of transgenic protein — Measure by a Member State temporarily restricting or suspending the trade in or use of a novel food in its territory)

text:
C 264/10                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              1.11.2003
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                        lishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                 and the promotion of combined transport (OJ 2001 L 108,
trar, has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it                   p. 27), but only in so far as they are based on Article 93 EC
has ruled:                                                                     and without altering their effects, which should be maintained,
                                                                               the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-
Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC and Council Directive 92/12/EEC of                   teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber,
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                  Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
such products, as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in
30 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do                  which it:
not preclude a national rule providing for the levy of surcharges on
the price of electricity such as those at issue in the main proceedings        1.    Annuls Council Decision 2001/265/EC of 19 March 2001
when the electricity is used in an electro-chemical process and that                 concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the
Council Recommendation 81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981 on                              European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria establishing
electricity tariff structures in the Community is not capable of                     certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the
preventing a Member State from levying such surcharges.                              promotion of combined transport and 2001/266/EC of
                                                                                19 March 2001 concerning the conclusion of the agreement
                                                                                between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.                                                           establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road
                                                                                and the promotion of combined transport;
                                                                               2.    Declares that the effects of the decisions are to be maintained
                                                                                until the measures necessary to implement the present judgment
                                                                                have been adopted;
                                                                               3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               4.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                          of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.
                        of 11 September 2003                                   (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
in Case C-211/01: Commission of the European Communi-
            ties v Council of the European Union (1)
(EC/Bulgaria and EC/Hungary Agreements — Carriage of                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
goods by road and combined transport — Taxation — Legal
                basis — Articles 71 EC and 93 EC)                                                     of 9 September 2003
                            (2003/C 264/16)                                    in Case C-236/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio):
                                                                               Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others v Presidenza
                      (Language of the case: French)                                       del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Novel foods — Placing on
                     in the European Court Reports)                            the market — Safety assessment — Simplified procedure —
                                                                               Substantial equivalence to existing foods — Foods produced
                                                                               from genetically modified maize — Presence of residues of
                                                                               transgenic protein — Measure by a Member State tempor-
In Case C-211/01, Commission of the European Communities                       arily restricting or suspending the trade in or use of a novel
(Agent: initially by M. Wolfcarius, subsequently by W. Wils) v                                         food in its territory)
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino and
E. Karlsson) supported by Federal Republic of Germany                                                    (2003/C 264/17)
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) and by Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg (Agents: J. Falts and N. Mackel): Application
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
for the annulment of Council Decisions 2001/265/EC of
19 March 2001 concerning the conclusion of the agreement
between the European Community and the Republic of                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of                                      in the European Court Reports)
goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
2001 L 108, p. 4), and 2001/266/EC of 19 March 2001
concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the                         In Case C-236/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
European Community and the Republic of Hungary estab-                          EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 264/11
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       provision relating to substantial equivalence within the meaning
court between Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others                              of the first subparagraph of Article 3(4) of the Regulation.
and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others, on
the interpretation and validity of the first subparagraph of
Article 3(4) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation                (1) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
(EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food
ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1), and on the interpretation of
Article 12 thereof, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet and C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, S. von Bahr,                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                                        of 9 September 2003
has given a judgment on 9 September 2003, in which it has
ruled:
                                                                               in Case C-285/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai): Isabel Burbaud
                                                                                v Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité (1)
                                                                               (Recognition of diplomas — Hospital managers in the public
                                                                               service — Directive 89/48/EEC — Definition of ‘diploma’
1.    The first subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC)                — Entrance examination — Article 48 of the EC Treaty
      No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of                             (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC))
      27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food
      ingredients must be interpreted as meaning that the mere                                             (2003/C 264/18)
      presence in novel foods of residues of transgenic protein at
      certain levels does not preclude those foods from being considered
      substantially equivalent to existing foods and, consequently, use                               (Language of the case: French)
      of the simplified procedure for placing those foods on the
      market. However, that is not the case where the existence of a           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      risk of potentially dangerous effects on human health can be                                   in the European Court Reports)
      identified on the basis of the scientific knowledge available at
      the time of the initial assessment. It is for the national court to
      determine whether that condition is satisfied.
                                                                               In Case C-285/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                               EC by the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai (France) for a
                                                                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                               court between Isabel Burbaud and Ministère de l’Emploi et de
                                                                               la Solidarité, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
2.    In principle, the issue of the validity of the use of the simplified     Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and of Council
      procedure laid down in Article 5 of Regulation No 258/97 for             Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
      the placing of novel foods on the market does not affect the             system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
      power of the Member States to adopt measures falling under               awarded on completion of professional education and training
      Article 12 of the Regulation, such as the Decree of 4 August             of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), the
      2000 at issue in the main proceedings. Since the simplified              Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
      procedure does not imply any consent, even tacit, by the                 J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timm-
      Commission, a Member State is not required to challenge the              ermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      lawfulness of such a consent before adopting such measures.              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
      Nevertheless, those measures can be adopted only if the Member           N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
      State has first carried out a risk assessment which is as complete       Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      as possible given the particular circumstances of the individual         Administrator, for the Registrar, subsequently H. von Holstein,
      case, from which it is apparent that, in the light of the                Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2003,
      precautionary principle, the implementation of such measures is          in which it has ruled:
      necessary in order to ensure that novel foods do not present a
      danger for the consumer, in accordance with the first indent of
      Article 3(1) of Regulation No 258/97.                                    1.     Confirmation of passing the final examination of the École
                                                                                nationale de la santé publique, which leads to permanent
                                                                                appointment to the French hospital public service, must be
                                                                                regarded as a ‘diploma’ within the meaning of Council Directive
                                                                                89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for
                                                                                the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
3.    Consideration of the fourth question has disclosed no factor                    completion of professional education and training of at least
      such as to affect the validity of Article 5 of Regulation No 258/               three years’ duration. It is for the national court to determine,
      97 as regards, inter alia, the condition for application of that                for the purposes of applying point (a) of the first paragraph of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2000 in Case T-184/97: BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) — Directive 92/81/EEC — Meaning of "pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products")

text:
C 355/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            9.12.2000
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission to bear their
                                                                                own costs in relation to the procedure in Case T-74/97.
                       of 26 September 2000
                                                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
in Joined Cases T-74/97 Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik
GmbH v Council of the European Union and T-75/97
Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Extension of an anti-dumping duty — Exemption — Bicycle
      parts — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)                                           of 27 September 2000
                                                                          in Case T-184/97: BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the
                           (2000/C 355/44)                                                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aid — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing
                                                                          proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Article 92(3) of the
                    (Language of the case: German)                        EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) —
                                                                          Directive 92/81/EEC — Meaning of ‘pilot projects for the
                                                                          technological development of more environmentally-friendly
In Joined Cases T-74/97 Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik                                                products’)
GmbH, established in Fulda (Germany), represented by
W.A. Rehmann and U. Zinsmeister, of the Brussels Bar, with                                          (2000/C 355/45)
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
and Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against the Council of the
European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, A. Tanca, S. Marquardt                                   (Language of the case: English)
and H.-J. Rabe), supported by the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) and by the                In Case T-184/97: BP Chemicals Ltd, established in London
French Republic (Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger) and T-75/97                  (United Kingdom), represented by J. Flynn, Barrister, and
Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Com-                    J.A. Rodriguez, Solicitor, with an address for service in
mission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz,               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue
N. Khan and M. Hilf) — application for, in Case T-74/97, the              Goethe, against Commission of the European Communities
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January               (Agent: N. Khan), supported by the French Republic (Agents:
1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by                K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for the
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the                annulment of Commission Decision SG(97) D/3266 of 9 April
People’s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts            1997 concerning an aid scheme for biofuels in France — the
from the People’s Republic of China, and levying the extended             Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC)                     sition), composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi,
No 703/96 (OJ 1997 L 16, p. 55), and, in Case T-75/97, for                M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 of                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of                  27 September 2000, in which it:
imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s
Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation                1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought against Com-
(EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council                       mission Decision SG(97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 concerning
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 17) — the                         an aid scheme for biofuels in France in so far as that decision
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-                         relates to measures applicable to the esters sector;
sition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber,
V. Tiili, J. Azizi, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,         2.    Annuls the contested decision to the extent to which it relates
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                to the measures concerning the ETBE sector;
on 26 September 2000, in which it:
                                                                          3.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;
1.    Dismisses the actions in Cases T-74/97 and T-75/97 as               4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay
      inadmissible;                                                             those incurred by the applicant as a result of its intervention.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the Council’s        (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
      costs in relation to Case T-74/97, and the Commission’s costs
      incurred in connection with Case T-75/97;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 15 February 1996 in Case C-226/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi): Grand Garage Albigeois SA and Others v. Garage Massol Sàrl (Competition - Vehicle distribution - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Applicability as against third parties - Independent reseller)

text:
4 . 5 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/5
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Second Chamber )
2 , orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                             of 15 February 1996
                                                                     in Case C-3 09/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon ): Nissan France and
(') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                     Others v. Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and
                                                                                Others ( 1 )
                                                                     (Competition — Vehicle distribution — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 123/85 — Applicability as against third parties —
                                                                     Parallel importer — Simultaneous conduct of business as
                                                                       both authorized intermediary and independent reseller)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/09 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ( Second Chamber )                                            (Language of the case: French)
                     of 15 February 1996
in Case C-226/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi ): Grand Garage Albigeois
           SA and Others v. Garage Massol Sàrl ( ! )                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Competition — Vehicle distribution — Regulation (EEC)                       published in the European Court Reports)
No 123/85 — Applicability as against third parties —
                     Independent reseller)
                          ( 96/C 133/08 )
                                                                     In Case C-309/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon, in the proceedings
                (Language of the case: French)                       pending before that court between Nissan France and
                                                                     Others v . Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and
                                                                     Others — the Court - ( Second Chamber ), composed of
                                                                     G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                     Colomer, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                     the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 1996 , the
                                                                     operative part of which as follows :
In Case C-226/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi, in the proceedings pending
before that court between Grand Garage Albigeois SA and
Others v. Garage Massol Sari — the Court ( Second
Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, President of the                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler                        1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty
( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                      to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 servicing agreements must be interpreted as not preventing a
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 1996 , the                 trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution
operative part of which is as follows :                              network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor
                                                                     vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning
                                                                     of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation from undertaking
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December                 parallel imports and operating as an independent reseller of
1 984 on the application ofArticle 85 (3) of the EC Treaty to        new vehicles ofthat make. Nor does that Regulation prevent
certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and                 an independent trader from carrying on at the same
servicing agreements must be interpreted as not preventing a         time the businesses of authorized intermediary and that
trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution       of non-approved reseller of vehicles acquired by way
network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor              of parallel imports.
vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning
of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation, from carrying on an
independent business reselling new vehicles of that make.
                                                                     (<) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
0 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-468/04: Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Kenzo Takada against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/27

         Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Kenzo Takada against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-468/04)
   (2005/C 57/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 November 2004 by Kenzo Takada, established in Paris, represented by Fernand de Visscher, Eric de Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.
   Kenzo SA was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision delivered on 14 September 2004 by the First Board of Appeal in case R 643/2003-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Kenzo Takada

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark 'KENZO TAKADA' for goods and services in Classes 3, 25 and 42 (Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; clothing; services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation, …) – Application No 2008084

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Kenzo SA

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Community, national and international word and figurative marks 'KENZO' for the goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 25 and 42 (Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; clothing; services providing temporary accommodation, food and drink, …)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Application for Community trade mark rejected.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Removal from the register of Case T-511/93

text:
No C 299/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
Limited, Effem Management Services Limited, Vickers                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Public Limited Company v. Council of the European Union                                       of 9 August 1995
and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      in Case T-541/93 : Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of
                                                                                the European Union (')
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
                                                                                (Partial removal from register)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/40 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 ( )
                                                                      In Case T-541 /93 : Sean Coughlan , James Connaughton,
                          ( 95/C 299/37 )                             Gregory Walsh, Patrick Heffernan , Thomas Fitzsimons,
                                                                      Patrick Wall, Patrick Griffin and John Harris, represented
              (Language of the case: English)                         by James O'Reilly SC , of the Bar of Ireland, and by Philippa
                                                                      Watson, Barrister, of the Bar of Ireland , instructed by Oliver
By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First                  Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre , 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Brasseur, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Arthur
from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 : Freda Elsie Locke and          Brautigam and Michel Bishop ), supported by Commission
Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission                of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and
of the European Communities .                                         Xavier Lewis ) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially J. D. Colahan, then S. T.
(') OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .                                     Braviner ) — application under Article 173 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
                                                                      products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
                                                                      ( OJ 1993 L 196 , p. 6 ), and in particular Articles 8 and 14
     Removal from the register of Case T-529/93 ( )                   thereof — the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                      made an order on 9 August 1995 , the operative part of
                          ( 95/C 299/38 )                             which is as follows :
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      1 . the names Sean Coughlan, Gregory Walsh, Patrick
                                                                           Heffernan, Patrick Wall and John Harris shall be
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First                      removed from the list of applicants in Case
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                     T-541 /93 ;
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-529/93 : Wallace A. Rodgers,              2 . the parties shall bear their own costs including those
Teresa McVeigh, John Rogan, Patrick O'Brien v. Council of                  relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      3.   the interveners shall bear their own costs .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
     Removal from the register of Case T-540/93 ( )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-5 5 0/93 ( )
                           ( 95/C 299/39 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/41 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-540/93 : Kathleen Early v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                   T-550/93 : Dimitrios Benecos v.           Commission of the
European Communities .                                                European Communities .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .