title: Case T-248/08 P: Appeal brought on 23 June 2008 by Frantisek Doktor against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07, Doktor v Council

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/52

         Appeal brought on 23 June 2008 by Frantisek Doktor against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07, Doktor v Council

   (Case T-248/08 P)
   (2008/C 223/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Frantisek Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment delivered by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07;

               —

               Grant the pleas seeking annulment and compensation submitted by the applicant at first instance;

               —

               Order the defendant at first instance to pay all the costs of the action for annulment and of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 16 April 2008, delivered in Case F-73/07 Doktor v Council, dismissing the action by which the applicant had sought, on the one hand, annulment of the decision of the Council to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and, on the other, damages in compensation for the professional, financial and non-pecuniary losses allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant submits that the CST i) distorted the clear sense of certain pieces of evidence, in particular by basing a number of its conclusions on an incorrect material assessment of the elements of the documents submitted to it; ii) infringed the applicant's rights of the defence by not taking into consideration or not answering a number of elements or arguments put before it; and iii) committed two errors in law with respect to its interpretation of Community law relating to the applicant's right to complete his probationary period under normal conditions and to the administration's ability to supplement the reasoning of a complaint during the written procedure before the Community Courts.


title: Case C-195/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-195/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/55
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-390/02: Action brought on 6 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 323/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.12.2002
      municipal district, for the completion of an expansion             Action brought on 6 November 2002 by the Commission
      basin for the River Enza and for controlling spate                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
      waters in the river Terdoppio-Canale Scolmatore to the                                                lic
      southwest of Cerano by means of a negotiated procedure
      which was not preceded by the publication of a tender
      notice when there no budgetary resources were available;                                      (Case C-390/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/38)
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 November
                                                                         2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          represented by Georgios Zavvos, of its Legal Service.
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
According to the Commission the negotiated procedure, which
was not preceded by the publication of a tender notice,
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to
adopted by the Magistrato del Po di Parma when awarding
                                                                               notify to the Commission, within the time-limit laid
contracts relating to the completion of the abovementioned
                                                                               down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
work, does not conform with the requirements of Directive
                                                                               necessary to comply fully with Directive 99/42/EC (1) of
93/37/EC.
                                                                               the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June
                                                                               1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition of
                                                                               qualifications in respect of the professional activities
                                                                               covered by the directives on liberalisation and transitional
First, the Commission points out that the aforementioned                       measures and supplementing the general systems for the
awards, although described by the awarding authority as                        recognition of qualifications, the Hellenic Republic has
‘concessions solely for construction work’, must in actual fact                failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
be regarded as public works contracts.
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 1(d) of the directive defines ‘public works concession’
as a public works contract except for the fact that the
consideration for the works to be carried out consists either            Pleas in law and main arguments
solely in the right to exploit the construction or in this right
together with payment.
                                                                         In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                         directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                         each Member State to which they are addressed.
In the present case, however, the persons undertaking the
works have not been accorded any rights in the exploitation              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
of those works, so that the awards in question must be                   to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
regarded as public works contracts, which is not disputed by
                                                                         to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
the Italian authorities.                                                 or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                         Community.
Secondly, the Commission points out that Article 6 of the                It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
directive provides that it applies to public works contracts             measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
whose estimated value, including VAT, is EUR 5 000 000 or
greater. Thus, in view of the fact that the value of the contracts
in question exceeds the abovementioned threshold, they were              The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
subject to the requirements of the directive.                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                         ation of the directive at issue into Greek law or, of course,
                                                                         notified such measures to the Commission.
( 1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54 .
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 201, 31.7.1999, p. 77.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-56/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-56/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 31/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-56/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and H. Huttunen) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 February 2004 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský (Judge Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.


title: Case C-104/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali v Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi, admitted to a collective insolvency procedure known as ‘concordato preventivo’, Liquidazione giudiziale dei beni ceduti ai creditori della Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2000/35/EC — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Directive 2011/7/EU — Articles 2, 7 and 12 — Legislation of a Member State capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the State, the interest on a debt predating those directives)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/20

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali v Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi, admitted to a collective insolvency procedure known as ‘concordato preventivo’, Liquidazione giudiziale dei beni ceduti ai creditori della Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi
   (Case C-104/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Directive 2011/7/EU - Articles 2, 7 and 12 - Legislation of a Member State capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the State, the interest on a debt predating those directives))
   (2015/C 138/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali

      Respondents: Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi, admitted to a collective insolvency procedure known as ‘concordato preventivo’, Liquidazione giudiziale dei beni ceduti ai creditori della Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3(3) and 6 of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions and Articles 7 and 12 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State which has made use of the option under Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2000/35 from adopting, during the period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2011/7, legislative provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the State, the interest on a debt arising out of the performance of a contract concluded before 8 August 2002.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case T-80/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam and others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/36

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam and others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-80/05)
   (2005/C 143/69)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam, Bremen (Germany), Günther Früchtnicht, Bremen (Germany), Hinrich Geerken, Bremen (Germany), Hans-Jürgen Weyhausen-Brinkmann, Bremen (Germany), Curt-Hildebrand v. Einsiedel, Leipzig (Germany), Christina Gräfin von Schall-Riaucour, Ahlen-Vorhelm (Germany), Franz-Albrecht Metternich-Sandor, Prinz von Ratibor and Corvey, Höxter (Germany), Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein, Thumby (Germany) and the town of Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock (Germany), represented by T. Giesen, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the list of sites of Community importance for:

                           1.

                           the Continental biogeographical region

                           2.

                           the Atlantic biogeographical region

                     (notified under documents numbers C(2004) 4031 and C(2004) 4032) insofar as it concerns the property or territorial sovereignty of the applicants;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are either proprietors of entire sites or of large parts of sites declared by the contested decision to be sites of Community importance, which, the applicants submit, restricts their property rights.
   The applicants submit that the selection criteria used for adding to the list of sites of Community importance were not met since the habitat types and species decisive to the selection are either not to be found at all or are not sufficiently representative.
   The applicants contend further that:

               —

               essential procedural requirements under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) or under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC were infringed,

               —

               the Treaty was infringed as the selection decision which formed the basis of the listing at national level was already erroneous,

               —

               the Commission abused its discretion in adding all of the sites put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany to the list without exception.

      (1)  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).


               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/1

         2010/C 274/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

      OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

      OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

      OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

      OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-533/93: Edouard Bouma v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking)

text:
C 134/14               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 31 January 2001                                                      of 31 January 2001
in Case T-533/93: Edouard Bouma v Council of the                        in Case T-73/94: Bernard Beusmans v Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                      European Union and Commission of the European Com-
                            munities (1)                                                            munities (1)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —                (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                  Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-resump-                  entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-resump-
       tion of production on expiry of the undertaking)                 tion of production on expiry of the undertaking — With-
                                                                                drawal of the provisional reference quantity)
                         (2001/C 134/29)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/30)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-533/93: Edouard Bouma, residing in Rutten (Nether-
lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-           In Case T-73/94: Bernard Beusmans, residing in Noorbeek
horst, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in             (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                     H.J. Bronkhorst, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for
Guillaume, against Council of the European Union (Agent:                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,
A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities               62 Avenue Guillaume, against Council of the European Union
(Agent: by T. van Rijn) — application for compensation under            (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC           Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — appli-
Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of                  cation for compensation under Article 178 and the second
Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by the applicant as a               paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235
result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by              EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage
virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March                suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been
1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy             prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation
referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the          (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as                 the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84                  Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application           sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission
of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation          Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
(EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First             detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,            to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio                    L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
ment on 31 January 2001, in which it:                                   P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in
                                                                        which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                        1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.93.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 90 of 26.3.94.


title: Case F-66/10: Action brought on 17 August 2010 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/74

      Action brought on 17 August 2010 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission
      (Case F-66/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/139)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jorge De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008 in so far as it placed him in performance level III and awarded him two promotion points.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the appointing authority decision No R-98/10 of 12 May 2010, and in so far as necessary, the career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the sum estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-219/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014  — Autogrill España v Commission (State aid — Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad — Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure — Infringement of Article 87(1) EC)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Autogrill España v Commission
   (Case T-219/10) (1)

   ((State aid - Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad - Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure - Infringement of Article 87(1) EC))
   (2014/C 462/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Autogrill España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and subsequently by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-338/14: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015  — UNIC v Commission (Action for annulment — Joint actions to promote sustainable development economically, socially and environmentally in developing countries — Generalised tariff preferences granted to treated and partly treated leather originating from India, Pakistan and Ethiopia — Rejection of the application for a temporary withdrawal of the benefit of generalised preferences — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/20

         Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — UNIC v Commission
   (Case T-338/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Joint actions to promote sustainable development economically, socially and environmentally in developing countries - Generalised tariff preferences granted to treated and partly treated leather originating from India, Pakistan and Ethiopia - Rejection of the application for a temporary withdrawal of the benefit of generalised preferences - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 096/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Unione nazionale industria conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini and M. Bottino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 19 March 2014 addressed to the applicant and rejecting its request for initiation of a temporary withdrawal procedure in respect of the generalised preferential arrangements granted to the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia with regard to raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is rejected as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention made by the Republic of Italy.

               3.

               The Unione nazionale industria conciaria (UNIC) shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case C-279/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA against Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento

text:
C 333/12                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
the European Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and                      Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at
Roland Tricot) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch            in the case of Pavarini Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl)
and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,              v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-                following question:
nemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                       Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the
                                                                            rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                    No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                            consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
2. Orders Édouard Dubois et Fils SA to pay the costs.                      the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                            contributions of 1%?
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                        Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of                          27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA against Direzione delle                        Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
               Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                           European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
                                                                            cova S.A. and 31 others and the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                          (Case C-279/99)
                                                                                (Case C-300/99 P)
                          (1999/C 333/24)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                   An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at               Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova S.A. and
the Court Registry on 26 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling                31 others and the Council of the European Union was brought
in the case of Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA v Direzione delle               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the following question:               10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented
                                                                            by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva
Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with                 Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the              Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas
rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                              Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by              The appellants claim that the Court should:
the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
contributions of 1%?                                                        (1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-194/95 on account of all or some
                                                                                of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                               consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,
                                                                                either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case
                                                                                or by referring the matter back to the Court of First
                                                                                Instance;
                                                                            (2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court
                                                                                of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                             in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Pavarini                      upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first
Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl) against Direzione                           instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
           delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
                          (Case C-296/99)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — Infringement of Community law, consisting of the misap-
                          (1999/C 333/25)                                        plication and misinterpretation of Article 230 (formerly
                                                                                Article 173) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as the order treats
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the contested regulation as a measure of general application
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                        and ignores the fact that it is applicable only to a wholly
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First                   individualised and identified group of economic operators;


title: Case T-246/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/42

         Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)
   (Case T-246/17)
   (2017/C 195/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘Национальный Продукт’ — registration application No 14 747 513

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 in Case R 1017/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-392/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — MMT v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — MMT v Commission
   (Case T-392/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Objection of inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/95)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MMT Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau GmbH (Neustrelitz, Germany) (represented by: R.-J. Kurschus, M. Zimmermann, M. Grehsin and C. Kupke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/595/EC of 5 March 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the sale and export of products from the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (OJ 2003 L 202 p. 15) to the extent that the decision classifies as unlawful State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC the financial assistance envisaged by the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for shared offices on the territory of countries which are official candidates for accession to the European Union.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case T-94/15: Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Binca Seafoods v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/30

         Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Binca Seafoods v Commission
   (Case T-94/15)
   (2015/C 155/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 (Freedom to conduct a business), Article 20 (Equality before the law) and Article 21 (Non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a result of arbitrary difference in treatment
               The applicant alleges that, although the European Commission provided for transitional measures and special rules for other types of organic aquaculture in the implementing regulation, it arbitrarily failed to extend the transitional period expiring on 1 January 2015 laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 (1).
               The European Commission was aware that, although the release of the eggs from the organically kept females needed to be triggered by means of hormones, iridescent sharks were, in fact, kept in wholly organic conditions from the time of spawning. Since this is not consistent with the prospective general rules of EU law on aquaculture and other methods of triggering spawning are still in the course of development, the transitional period must be extended.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission by the Council
               The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the powers conferred on it by the Council cautiously to develop the regulatory framework of EU law for organic aquaculture so as to ensure that advances made in organic production methods are taken into account by the time of expiry of the transitional provisions without, however, the expiry of those provisions having the effect of forcing out of the market for organic products aquaculture certified as organic from 2009 onwards and in accordance with recognised rules.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to engage freely in world trade
               The European Commission intentionally opted not to take into account the jointly developed rules of the Codex Alimentarius, although it did not oppose the application of the general rule that juveniles from non-organic reproduction may be used in organic aquaculture if they cannot be reproduced through organic breeding, but rather adopted that formulation jointly with the other parties to the Codex Alimentarius. The European Union was therefore prevented from disburdening itself from the Codex without contravening its obligations under the WTO-Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (JO 2008 L 250, p. 1).


title: Case C-172/05 P: Order of the Court of 13 June 2006 — Ornella Mancini v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Post of medical officer — Notice of vacancy — Comparative examination of merits — Composition of the selection board — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/15

         Order of the Court of 13 June 2006 — Ornella Mancini v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-172/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Post of medical officer - Notice of vacancy - Comparative examination of merits - Composition of the selection board - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2006/C 224/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Ornella Mancini (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, avocat)
   Re
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2005 in Case T-137/03 Mancini v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application, firstly, for annulment of the Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of medical officer at the ‘Medical Service — Brusells’ unit and of the decision to appoint another candidate to that post and, secondly, for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Appeal brought on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik against the order made on 19 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-270/95 P)

text:
No C 268/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
2.2 . the Pharmaceutical was first put on the market in a              preliminary ruling in the case of Benincasa v . Dentalkit srl
      country by the Proprietor after that country's accession         on the following questions :
      to the EC but at a time when the Pharmaceutical could
      not be protected by a product patent in the                      ( 1 ) is a plaintiff to be regarded as a consumer within the
      country ;
                                                                              meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13 and the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention on
2.3 a third party imports the Pharmaceutical from that                        jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil
      country into the Member State;                                          and commercial matters ('the Convention ') even if his
                                                                              action relates to a contract which he concluded not for
2.4 and the patent legislation in the Member State granted                    the purpose of a trade which he was already pursuing
      the proprietor of the Patent the right to oppose by legal               but a trade to be taken up only at a future date ( here : a
      action the importation of the Pharmaceutical from that                  franchising agreement concluded for the purpose of
      country,                                                                setting up a business )?
                                                                       (2 ) If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative :
do the rules set forth in the EC Treaty concerning the free
movement of goods prevent the Proprietor from availing                        does point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the
himself of the right referred to in paragraph 2.4 above, in                   Convention ( contract for the sale of goods on
particular if:                                                                instalment credit terms) cover a franchising agreement
                                                                              which obliges the plaintiff to buy from the other party
      ( a ) the Proprietor had and continues to have a legal                  to the agreement, over a period of several ( three ) years,
            and/or ethical obligation to market and to                        the articles and goods required to equip and operate a
            continue marketing the Pharmaceutical in that                     business (without instalment credit terms having been
            country; and/or                                                   agreed ) and to pay an initial fee and, as from the second
                                                                              year of the business , a licence fee of 3 % of
      ( b ) that country's and/or EC legislation effectively                  turnover ?
            requires that, once the Pharmaceutical is put on
                                                                       ( 3 ) Does the court of a Member State specified in an
            the market in that country, the Proprietor supplies
                                                                              agreement conferring jurisdiction have exclusive
            and continues to supply sufficient quantities to
                                                                              jurisdiction pursuant to the first sentence of the first
            satisfy the needs of domestic patients; and/or
                                                                              paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention even when
                                                                              an action is inter alia for a declaration of the invalidity
      ( c ) that country's legislation grants to its authorities,
                                                                              of a franchising agreement in which the agreement
            and its authorities exercise, the right to fix the sale
                                                                              conferring jurisdiction is itself contained, the following
            price of the Pharmaceutical in that country and
            legislation prohibits the sale of the Pharmaceutical              wording ( English translation ) 'the courts in Florence
                                                                              have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the
            at any other price; and/or
                                                                              interpretation , performance or other aspect of this
      ( d ) the price of the Pharmaceutical in that country has               contract' being separately accepted with a reference to
                                                                              Articles 1341 and 1342 of the Italian Codice Civile ?
            been fixed by its authorities at a level at which
            substantial exports of the Pharmaceutical from
            such country to the Member State are anticipated
            with the result that the economic value of the
            Patent would be significantly eroded and research          Appeal brought on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik against the
            and development for future pharmaceuticals                 order made on 19 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the
            planned by the Proprietor significantly                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
            underminded, contrary to the rationale                     Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the
            underlying the recent introduction by the EC               European Union and the Commission of the European
            Council     of     the   Supplementary     Protection            Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
            Certificate .
                                                                                ( Case C-270/95 P )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/30 )
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 19 June 1995 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            European Union and the Commission of the European
Oberlandesgericht Miinchen, by order of that court of                  Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain , was
  5 May 1995 , in the case of Benincasa v. Dentalkit srl               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                          ( Case C-269/95 )                            Communities on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik, represented by
                            ( 95/C 268/29 )                            G. L. Kooy, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16 Avenue
                                                                       Marie-Thérèse .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the                                The appellant claims that the Court should :
Oberlandesgericht Miinchen ( Higher Regional Court,
Munich ), Eighth Chamber, of 5 May 1995 , which was                    — set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
received at the Court Registry on 9 August 1995 , for a                      19 June 1995 dismissing as inadmissible the applicant's
 ---pagebreak---  14 . 10 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 15
     action against the Council of the European Union and               the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
     the joined party, the Kingdom of Spain, for the                     1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     annulment of Article 115 of Council Regulation ( EC )              14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     No 40/94, and declare admissible the applicant's action            Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
     against the Council of the European Union and the                  — Export refund department — on the following
     Kingdom of Spain for the annulment of the said                     questions :
     Article 115 ,
                                                                        1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal .                         tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
                                                                             Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
The Court of First Instance wrongly held that the applicant                  content and consequently on the degree of its
                                                                             esterification ?
was affected solely in her objective capacity as a trade-mark
agent, in the same way as any other trade-mark agent                    2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the
finding himself, actually or potentially, in a comparable                    maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
situation as regards the use of the Dutch language . The                     esterified potato starch exported between April 1987
Court of First Instance overlooked, however, the fact that,                  and August 1987 so as not to preclude its classification
where a category of persons falls to be considered, it must                  within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of the Common
necessarily be a valid category. In the present case, the Court              Customs Tariff 1987 ?
of First Instance has created a category which is incapable of
existing, since, according to Regulation No 1 of the Council
determining the languages to be used by the European
Community, any person established in an EC country may                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
use his own language .                                                  by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig
                                                                        Wiinsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
                                                                                Export refund department
                                                                                Case C-2 76/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig                                     ( 95/C 268/33 )
                                                                                \
Wunsche & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Export                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                       refund department                                European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
                          Case C-2 74/95                                the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
                          ( 95/C 268/31 )                               1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 — Export refund department — on the following
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June                questions :
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
Ludwig Wunsche & Co v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                           tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
— Export refund department — on the following                                Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
questions :
                                                                             the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
                                                                             content and consequently on the degree of its
1 , does the tariff classification of esterified potato starch               esterification ?
     within subheading 3505 10 50 of the combined
     nomenclature depend on its acetyl content and                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: how high could the
     consequently on the degree of its esterification ?                      maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
                                                                             esterified potato starch exported between March 1987
2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the                 and December 1987 so as not to preclude its
     maximum acetyl content have been in the case of                         classification within tariff subheading 1 1.08 A IV of the
     esterified potato starch exported in February 1988 so as                Common Customs Tariff 1987 ?
     not to preclude its tariff classification within subheading
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and
                                                                        Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof               Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig            European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,
Wunsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —                           T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker
                   Export refund department                             Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case C-275 /95 )                                                    ( Case C-277/95 P )
                          ( 95/C 268/32 )                                                        ( 95/C 268/34 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An appeal against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Cases C-480/00, C-490/00 and C-491/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of that court of 6 July 2000 in Case C-480/00 Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other party to the proceedings being Caseificio Nazionale Novarese s.c.a.r.l.; Case C-490/00 Cesare and Michele Filippi s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning; Case C-491/00 Cooperativa Latte Associati della Lessinia a.r.l. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning

text:
C 108/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.4.2001
Augsburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-                   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
ings pending before that court between Johann Vogler and                      the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
Landwirtschaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben, on the validity                     ruling in Case C-480/00 Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v
and interpretation of Articles 13(1) and 14a(2) and on the                    Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
interpretation of Articles 13(2)(b), 14a(3) and 14c of Regu-                  (AIMA), the other party to the proceedings being Caseificio
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on                     Nazionale Novarese s.c.a.r.l.; Case C-490/00 Cesare and Miche-
the application of social security schemes to employed persons,               le Filippi s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
to self-employed persons and to members of their families                     the Budget and Planning; Case C-491/00 Cooperativa Latte
moving within the Community, in the version thereof amended                   Associati della Lessinia a.r.l. v AIMA and the Ministry of the
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of                           Treasury, the Budget and Planning on the following questions:
2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by
Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ
1999 L 38, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet                        Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
                                                                                1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and                     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                          meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                                judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
Registrar, has made an order on 20 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                             from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
                                                                                quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
Consideration of the first question referred has not disclosed any
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 13(1) in           If not:
conjunction with Article 14a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security          (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
members of their families moving within the Community, in the                      1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
version thereof amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation                     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
(EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999. It follows from those                         provide that derogations may be made from the periods
provisions that a person who simultaneously operates, in a self-                   prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
employed capacity, an agricultural undertaking in Germany and, in                  individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
the same capacity, a hotel in Austria, where he resides, is subject only           in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
to the social security legislation of the latter State.                            provisions ?
(1) OJ C 246, 28.8.1999.                                                      (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
                                                                                as meaning that the application of the system introduced
                                                                                by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
                                                                                notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
                                                                                ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
                                                                                its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
                                                                                which that State is guaranteed?
                                                                              (4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                                interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of                              individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
that court of 6 July 2000 in Case C-480/00 Azienda                                 or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v Azienda di Stato per gli                                 exclude individual notification to those producers?
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other party
to the proceedings being Caseificio Nazionale Novarese
s.c.a.r.l.; Case C-490/00 Cesare and Michele Filippi s.s. v                   (5) May Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 and
AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                              Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 563/93 be interpreted
Planning; Case C-491/00 Cooperativa Latte Associati della                          as leaving the Member States free to determine privileged
Lessinia a.r.l. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,                           categories of producers who must be compensated in
                      the Budget and Planning                                      priority to others?
            (Cases C-480/00, C-490/00 and C-491/00)
                                                                              (1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                            (2001/C 108/03)                                   (2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of 6 July 2000 of the


title: Case F-15/16: Action brought on 15 March 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/52

         Action brought on 15 March 2016 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-15/16)
   (2016/C 191/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant permission to publish an article, in the absence of modification of the proposed text.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-282/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Belgian State v Truck Center SA

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Belgian State v Truck Center SA
   (Case C-282/07)
   (2007/C 199/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Belgian State

      Respondent: Truck Center SA
   Question referred
   Do Article 105(iii)(b) and Article 107(2)(ix) of the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 adopted pursuant to Article 266 of the Income Tax Code 1992, read in conjunction with Article 23 of the Belgo-Luxembourg Double Taxation Treaty, infringe Article 73 (now Article 56) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, providing for free movement of capital, in that, by limiting the waiver in respect of withholding tax provided for in Article 107(2)(ix) exclusively to interest allocated to resident companies, they have, in particular, first, the effect of discouraging resident companies from borrowing capital from companies established in another Member State and, second, they constitute for companies established in another Member State an obstacle to investing capital, by way of loans, in companies having their seat in Belgium?


title: Case T-222/16: Action brought on 11 May 2016 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/47

         Action brought on 11 May 2016 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN)
   (Case T-222/16)
   (2016/C 270/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hansen Medical, Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Covidien AG (Neuhausen am Rheinfall, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MAGELLAN’ – EU trade mark No 5 437 711

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2016 in Joined Cases R 3092/2014-2 and R 3118/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 15, 51(1)(a), 57(1), 63(2), 64, 75, 76(2) and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009.


C 305/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.12.2002
      provided for in Annex II A or II B to Directive 75/442/                      Removal from the register of Case C-246/99 ( 1)
      EEC (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2), or
      himself recovers or disposes of such waste, the Italian
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4                                (2002/C 305/33)
      and 8 of that directive;
2.    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           By order of 11 September 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-246/99: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
The first paragraph of Article 4 of the directive provides that
Member States are to adopt the necessary measures to ensure
that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering
human health and without using processes or methods which
could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to
water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a
nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-434/00 ( 1)
affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
                                                                                (2002/C 305/34)
In the present case, the Italian Republic has not adopted any
appropriate measure to ensure that waste deposited in the
Rodano disposal site is recovered or disposed of without
endangering human health and without using procedures or                   By order of 24 September 2002 the President of the Court of
methods which could harm the environment. Consequently, it                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of the                from the register of Case C-434/00 (Reference for a preliminary
directive.                                                                 ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): G. Cuomo.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
In addition, Article 8 of the directive provides that Member
States are to ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by
a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which
carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the
directive, or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance
with the provisions of the directive. To that end, the owners
or managers of disposal sites are regarded as holders within
the meaning of Article 8.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-120/01 ( 1)
The Italian Republic has failed to adopt the necessary measures
to ensure that the holder of waste deposited in the Rodano                                          (2002/C 305/35)
disposal site has such waste handled by a private or public
collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations
provided for in Annex II A or II B to the directive. Conse-
quently, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of        By order of 9 September 2002 the President of the Court of
the directive.                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-120/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case T-569/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2017 — OU v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension — Sums withheld from remuneration — Reprimand — Repayment — Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2017 — OU v Commission
   (Case T-569/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Contract staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension - Sums withheld from remuneration - Reprimand - Repayment - Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations))
   (2017/C 195/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: OU (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for repayment of the sums withheld from his remuneration during a period of six months as from 15 January 2007, and, second, repayment of those sums together with interest payable on them.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 13 March 2015 by which the European Commission rejected the application of Mr OU for repayment of the sums withheld from his remuneration pursuant to the decision of the Commission of 14 December 2006;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to repay to Mr OU the sums withheld from his remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-141/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-813/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer — Identical earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date — Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer)
   (Case T-813/14) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer - Identical earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date - Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2016/C 007/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Min Liu (Guangzhou, China) (represented initially by R. Bailly, S. Zhang and Y. Zhang, and subsequently by Y. Zhang, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DSN Marketing Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1864/2013-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between DSN Marketing Ltd and Mr Min Liu.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Min Liu to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-228/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/35

         Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission
   (Case T-228/17)
   (2017/C 195/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd (Wenzhou, China) (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/141 of 26 January 2017 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2017, L 22, p. 14) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceeding, to pay the legal costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed various manifest errors of assessment when considering that stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings (SSBWF) of US and EU technical standards are interchangeable

                           —

                           The Commission failed in its duty to assess pertinent evidence in an impartial manner insofar as various factual statements concerning interchangeability in the contested regulation are either inaccurate, contradictory, or misleading. In particular the allegation according to which the only cooperating importer supposedly failed to submit relevant evidence is inaccurate.

                           —

                           The Commission wrongly assumed that SSBWF were double certified according to European and US standards. It exclusively based itself on unfounded last minute assertions by the complaints only appearing for the very first time in the contested regulation itself.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment, and failed to provide an adequate reasoning with regard to the adjustment of the normal value and argued in a contradictory manner.

                           —

                           The Commission wrongly relied on EU industry cost and manufacturing data to determine the appropriate level of adjustment. It rejected a proposal for adjustment that was based on Chinese market data for reasons that were not justified.

                           —

                           In this respect the contested regulation violated Article 20 of the Basic Regulation and Article 296 of the TFEU and furthermore lacks sufficient statement of reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the determination of the period to be considered is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

                           —

                           The Commission proceeded in an arbitrary manner by not considering an alternative period although it would have been in possession of the relevant data because of a previous investigation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading up to the contested regulation was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principles of sound administration, transparency and the applicant’s rights of defence.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to provide the applicant with ‘available information’ in a timely fashion following the provisional disclosure. When the Commission finally released that information along with all other data and information for the first time at the final disclosure, it did not provide the applicant sufficient time to carry out a meaningful assessment.

                           —

                           It infringed the rights of defence of the applicant by not providing it with an opportunity to comment on key findings based on last minute and unverified assertions of the complainant appearing for the first time in the contested regulation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation, adopted on 26 January 2017, wrongly establishes the applicant’s anti-dumping duty in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Regulation which set out exceptional, analogue country methodology for calculating the normal value of imports from the People’s Republic of China, notwithstanding that the EU’s right to apply such exceptional treatment expired on 11 December 2016.

                           —

                           The European Union has committed itself to the specific terms of China’s WTO Accession Protocol via the Council decision approving the accession. As an EU institution, the Commission must respect international commitments entered into by the Union in the exercise of its powers.

                           —

                           The contested regulation is further incompatible with the EU’s obligation to construe its antidumping rules in conformity with international law, especially where its provisions intend specifically to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Union.


C 387/26             lEN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 October                 The applicant also maintains that the contested decisions
1997 by Antonio Giannini, residing in Brussels,                    disregard the principle of the protection of legitimate
represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the            expectations and are vitiated by a misuse of powers.
Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul :
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-396/94 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/48 )
     — the defendant's decision annulling notice COM/
         151/94,                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     — notice COM/062/97,                                          By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
     — the defendant's decision No 4732 of 24 July 1997            removal from the register of Case T-396/94 : Centrale
         rejecting the complaint, which was notified to the        Bewerkingseenheid ( CBE) v. Commission of the European
         applicant on 30 July 1997,                                Communities .
                                                                   (') OJ C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the defendant to :
     — pay the applicant the difference between his salary
         and the salary improperly paid to the candidate
         appointed to the post in issue, by way of
         compensation for the non-material damage                          Removal from the register of Case T-23/97 (')
         suffered by him since the unlawful appointment of                                        97/C 387/49 )
         the latter,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
     — pay the applicant the difference between his
         current salary and the salary which he would have
         received in grade A3 since 28 April 1995 , by way         By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the Second
         of compensation for the material damage suffered           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
         by him,                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case T-23/97: AEVP —
                                                                    Associa^ao das Empresas de Vinho do Porto v.
      — pay all of the costs.                                       Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                    (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant contests the decisions taken by the
 defendant, in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 the Court of First Instance on 19 March 1997 in Case
 T-21/96 Giannini v. Commission, to annul vacancy notice                    Removal from the register of Case T-87/97 (')
 COM/151 /94, issued with a view to filling the post of                                          ( 97/C 387/50 )
 Head of Unit DG I/D/ l 'Negotiation and management of
 textile agreements; footwear and other industries', and to
 publish a new vacancy notice COM/062/97 in relation to                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 the same post.
                                                                     By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fie considers that the arguments advanced by the                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 defendant to justify the formulation of a fresh notice              Case T-87/97: Gustaaf van Dyck v. Commission of the
 corresponding to the same post are incorrect, and asserts           European Communities.
 that to seek to remove the defects which vitiated the
  notice annulled by the Court by adopting an act which,
                                                                     (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.
  although in a new form, is vitiated by the same defects,
  amounts to an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the
  Court's judgment .


title: Case C-93/15 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Republic of Portugal in favour of a financial institution in the form of a State guarantee underwriting a loan — Decision declaring the State aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/7

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação v European Commission
   (Case C-93/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Aid granted by the Republic of Portugal in favour of a financial institution in the form of a State guarantee underwriting a loan - Decision declaring the State aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 429/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellants: Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA — em liquidação (represented by: M. Ferreira Santos and R Leandro Vasconcelos, advogadas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. França and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Banco Privado Português SA and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.