title: Case T-365/07: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA) (Trade mark — Action for annulment — Applicant’s failure to proceed — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/13

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)
   (Case T-365/07) (1)

   (Trade mark - Action for annulment - Applicant’s failure to proceed - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 39/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Traxdata France SARL (Paris, France) (represented initially by F. Valentin, B. Amaudric du Chaffaut and G. Courtois, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ritrax Corporation Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M.H. Blair, M.J. Gilbert, S.S. Malynicz and C.A.N. Balme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Joined Cases R 1337/2005-1, R 1338/2005-1, R 1339/2005-1 and R 1340/2005-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Ritrax Corporation Ltd and Traxdata France SARL.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               Traxdata France SARL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


8.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/17
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an                     Removal from the register of Case C-304/99 ( 1)
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                                    (2003/C 55/31)
      development in respect of those works, supplies or
      services where that person has not been given an
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      competition?                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-304/99 (Reference for a preliminary
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): F. Apollonio & C. SpA v
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction           Ministero delle Finanze.
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-
      ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
      which had supplied gratuitous services?                            (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
3.    Can Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of Community rules
      on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
      the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
      sectors (3), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof, be
      interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity may
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-305/99 ( 1)
      exclude, up to the end of the process of evaluation of
      the tenders, from participation in the procedure or
      submission of a tender, an undertaking connected to any                                     (2003/C 55/32)
      person who has been responsible for the research, testing,
      study or development in respect of the works, supplies or
      services, although when questioned in that regard by the
      contracting authority that undertaking declares that it has
      gained therefrom no unfair advantage of a nature such as           By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      to distort the normal conditions of competition?                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-305/99 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Leglerdata SpA v Ministero
                                                                         delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 84.
( 2) OJ L 101 of 01.04.1998, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 76 of 23.03.1992, p. 14.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
        Removal from the register of Case C-303/99 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-358/99 ( 1)
                          (2003/C 55/30)                                                          (2003/C 55/33)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-303/99 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-358/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Markfactor SpA v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Tecnologie Meccaniche
delle Finanze.                                                           Avanzate Srl (TMA) v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                             (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: Case T-511/10: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014  — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Requests for quotations — Refusal of access — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Failure to adapt the claim for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/12

         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-511/10) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotations - Refusal of access - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of proceedings - Failure to adapt the claim for annulment - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 329/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens (Greece)) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, E. Manhaeve and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2010)508190 of 12 August 2010 refusing access to requests for quotations concerning certain framework contracts managed by the Publications Office of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and the European Commission are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-278/17: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/39

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)
   (Case T-278/17) (1)

   (2017/C 300/49)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94: Eurofer ASBL v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Decisions by associations of undertakings - System for the exchange of information)

text:
C 160/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             5.6.1999
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
                                                                               defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
                          of 11 March 1999                                (1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.
in Case T-134/94: NMH Stahlwerke GmbH v. Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
undertakings — System for the exchange of information —
          Fine — Responsibility for the infringement)                                              of 11 March 1999
                                                                          in Case T-136/94: Eurofer ASBL v. Commission of the
                           (1999/C 160/23)                                                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Decisions by associations
                                                                          of undertakings — System for the exchange of information)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                   (1999/C 160/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In case T-134/94: NMH Stahlwerke GmbH, having its regis-
tered office in Sulzbach-Rosenberg (Germany), represented by
Paul B. Schäuble, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address for               In case T-136/94: Eurofer ASBL, established in Luxembourg,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                   17-25, avenue de la Liberté, represented by Norbert Koch, of
8-10, rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                    the Brussels Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities
Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz             (Agents: initially Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz and Géraud
and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently Jean-Louis                 Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian
Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted by Heinz-               Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted by Heinz-Joachim Freund)
Joachim Freund) — application, principally, for the annulment             — application, principally, for the annulment of articles 2 and
of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994                    3 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC               relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC
Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged              Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged
in by European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)              in by European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                   — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,            Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-         A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March               trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
1999, in which it:                                                        1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. dismisses the action,
1. fixes at EUR 110 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the
     applicant by Article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC            2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
     of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
     Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and
     concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams,       (1) OJ C 174, 25.6.1994.
2. dismisses the remainder of the action,


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2004 in Case T-39/03 DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/16

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 July 2004
   in Case T-39/03 DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2004/C 251/29)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-39/03: DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart (Germany), represented by N. Siebertz, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the intervener before the Court of First Instance being Axon Leasing GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by S. Lüft, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2002 (Case R 329/2001-4) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, N. J. Forwood and I. Pelikánová, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case C-308/03: Action brought on 22 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Office for the safety of health products

text:
C 213/22              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
capital sum owed, the defendant also owes interest accrued               Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
since the debt came into being and until full payment is made.           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-310/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/40)
Action brought on 22 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Office for
                 the safety of health products
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-308/03)                                  ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                        (2003/C 213/39)                                  an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
An action against the French Office for the safety of health             the Court should:
products (AFSSAPS) was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 22 July 2003 by the                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
R. Lyal and C. Giolitto, acting as Agents, with an address for                 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
service in Luxembourg.                                                         the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
                                                                               sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
                                                                               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         obligations under that directive;
the Court should order the defendant;
                                                                         —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
1.    to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 47 218,32 (Forty-
      seven thousand two hundred and eighteen euros and
      thirty-two cents) corresponding to EUR 41 000 in respect
      of the principal and EUR 6 218,32 in respect of accrued            Pleas in law and main arguments
      interest for delay up to 31 March 2003, at the rate of
      5,25 %;
                                                                         The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
2.    to pay EUR 6,74 (Six euros and seventy-four cents) per             1 January 2002.
      day in respect of accrued interest, at the same rate, from
      1 April 2003 until payment in full;
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
3.    to pay the costs of this case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause, since             Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of            the European Communities against the French Republic
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the                                    (Case C-311/03)
Treaty.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/41)
By refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the
Commission, the AFSSAPS has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
field of telematic applications of common interest and is liable         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
to repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.                    2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2005 in Case C-377/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) in Léon Van Parys NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — GATT 1994 — Articles I and XIII — Framework agreement of 23 April 1993 between the EEC and the Cartagena Group — Direct effect — Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 1 March 2005
   in Case C-377/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) in Léon Van Parys NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - GATT 1994 - Articles I and XIII - Framework agreement of 23 April 1993 between the EEC and the Cartagena Group - Direct effect - Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects)
   (2005/C 106/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-377/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Raad van State (Belgium), made by decision of 7 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings between Léon Van Parys NV and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) — the Court: (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus,, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 March 2005, in which it ruled:

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an operator may not rely in proceedings before a national court on the fact that Community legislation is incompatible with certain rules of the World Trade Organisation even where the Dispute Settlement Body referred to in Article 2(1) of the Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes, which forms Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), has declared that legislation to be incompatible with those rules.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 261, 26.10.2002

text:
9.11.2002        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         C 274/39
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                    (2002/C 274/66)
             Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
          OJ C 261, 26.10.2002
          Past publications
          OJ C 247, 12.10.2002
          OJ C 233, 28.9.2002
          OJ C 219, 14.9.2002
          OJ C 202, 24.8.2002
          OJ C 191, 10.8.2002
          OJ C 180, 27.7.2002
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-507/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time at which a court is seised — Request to stay the proceedings — No effect)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/12

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M
   (Case C-507/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Absence of reasonable doubt - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 16(1)(a) - Determination of the time at which a court is seised - Request to stay the proceedings - No effect))
   (2015/C 320/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P

      Defendant: M

      Operative part of the order

   Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a court is deemed to be seised at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with that court, even where the proceedings have in the meantime been stayed at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant or that defendant having had knowledge of them or having intervened in them in any way, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-397/13: Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/4

         Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
   (Case T-397/13)
   2013/C 291/04
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and F. Le Roquais, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare admissible the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJEU L 196/13 of 19 July 2013);

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJEU L 196/13 of 19 July 2013);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      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 abuse of process, since the internal rules of the management committee were infringed in so far as the Commission did not permit the committee to consider all the information necessary in order to give its opinion on the draft text to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulation No 182/2011. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and lack of competence, since the contested regulation was adopted under the signature of the Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development on behalf of the President of the Commission, without it being shown that an act of delegation and a declaration of self-certification exist.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the contested regulation, in so far as:

                           —

                           recital 6 in the preamble to the regulation cannot constitute a sufficient statement of reasons for a regulation which departs from the normal practice of the Commission of fixing the amount of refunds according to the difference between the price of the goods concerned on the Community market, on the one hand, and on the world market, on the other, and

                           —

                           the statement of reasons is inconsistent and contradictory in that it is an identical reproduction of the earlier Implementing Regulation No 360/2013 without taking into account the progressive criteria set out in Article 164 of Regulation No 1234/2007. (2)

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the law or at least a manifest error of assessment, since the information furnished by the Commission to the management committee does not satisfy the criteria laid down in Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, in so far as the applicant legitimately expected, following assurances received from the Commission, the system of positive refunds to continue until the end of the current common agricultural policy.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p.13).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2000 in Case C-3/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent): criminal proceedings against Dany Schacht and Others (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
10.3.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 79/9
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                         of 5 October 2000
in Case C-3/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                of 6 October 2000
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): criminal proceedings against
                    Dany Schacht and Others (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                       in Case C-49/99 P: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori
    identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                    (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                           (2001/C 79/16)
                                                                           (Appeal — Aid to sugar-beet producers — Abolition —
                                                                           2001/2002 marketing year — Appeal clearly inadmissible
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                  and unfounded)
In Case C-3/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(formerly Article 177 of the EC Treaty) from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the                                             (2001/C 79/17)
criminal proceedings pending before that court against Dany
Schacht and Others on the interpretation of Article 1(a)(i) and
Article 14a(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
to members of their families moving within the Community,
in the version thereof amended and updated by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983
L 230, p. 6) and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-49/99 P: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB),
No 3811/86 of 11 December 1986 (OJ 1986 L 355, p. 5) —                     established in Rome (Italy), Francesco Coccia, residing in
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de                   Manfredonia (Italy), and Vincenzo Di Giovine, residing in
Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                 Lucera (Italy), represented by L.F. Paolucci and G.P. Galletti, of
and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                  the Bologna Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October 2000, the              the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde —
operative part of which is as follows:                                     appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
1.    The term ‘work’ appearing in Article 14a(1) (a) of Regulation        sition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-38/98 ANB and Others
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the               v Council [1998] ECR II-4191, seeking to have that order set
      application of social security schemes to employed persons, to       aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Council of
      self-employed persons and to members of their families moving        the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı́ez Parra) —
      within the Community, in the version thereof amended and             the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
      updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June             President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and
      1983 and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No                 A. La Pergola, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      3811/86 of 11 December 1986, means any work performed                Registrar, has made an order on 6 October 2000, the operative
      on an employed or self-employed basis.                               part of which is as follows:
2.    As long as it is not withdrawn or declared invalid, an E 101
      certificate issued pursuant to Article 11a of Regulation (EEC)       1.    The appeal is dismissed;
      No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the
      procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
      in the version thereof amended and updated by Regulation No          2.    The Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Mr Coccia and Mr Di
      2001/83 and subsequently by Regulation No 3811/86, is                      Giovine are ordered to pay the costs.
      binding on the competent institution of the Member State to
      which a self-employed worker goes in order to perform work
      and on the person who avails himself of the services of that
      worker.                                                              (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.


title: Case C-199/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d' Etat lodged on  2 May 2006  — Centre d'exportation du livre francais (CELF), Ministre de la culture et de la communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d' Etat lodged on 2 May 2006 — Centre d'exportation du livre francais (CELF), Ministre de la culture et de la communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition
   (Case C-199/06)
   (2006/C 154/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d' Etat (France)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Centre d'exportation du livre francais (CELF), Ministre de la culture et de la communication

      Respondent: Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Is it permissible under Article 88 (EC) for a State which has granted to an undertaking aid which is unlawful, and which the courts of that State have found to be unlawful on the ground that it had not previously been notified to the European Commission as required under Article 88(3) EC, not to recover that aid from the economic operator which received it on the ground that, after receiving a complaint from a third party, the Commission declared that aid to be compatible with the rules of the common market, thus effectively exercising its exclusive right to determine such compatibility?

               (2)

               If that obligation to repay the aid is confirmed, must the periods during which the aid in question was declared by the European Commission to be compatible with the rules of the common market, before those decisions were annulled by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the sums to be repaid?


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2005 in Case C-206/03: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division) Commissioners of Customs & Excise v SmithKline Beecham plc (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Nicotine patches — Force in law of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/10

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 19 January 2005
   in Case C-206/03: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division) Commissioners of Customs & Excise v SmithKline Beecham plc (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Common customs tariff - Tariff headings - Nicotine patches - Force in law of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation)
   (2005/C 106/18)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-206/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, (United Kingdom) made by decision of 7 December 2000, received at the Court on 14 May 2003, in the proceedings between Commissioners of Customs & Excise and SmithKline Beecham plc — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 19 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Nicotine patches, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be classed under heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997.

               2.

               If a competent authority has issued incorrect binding tariff information, a national court is required under Article 10 EC to take, within the sphere of its competence, all the measures necessary to ensure that that information is annulled and that new binding tariff information, consistent with Community law, is issued.
               In that context, the procedure for and the effects of the decisions adopted by the national court hearing the action fall, within the bounds set by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, within the ambit of domestic law.
               In that regard, it is not contrary to Article 12(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, for a national court to annul a decision of a customs authority which, while it is consistent with a classification opinion of the W.C.O., fails to take account of the Combined Nomenclature contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97, and to declare that goods must be classified otherwise than in accordance with that classification opinion.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.


title: Case C-158/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Trieste (Italy) lodged on 16 April 2008 — Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Trieste v Pometon S.p.A.

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Trieste (Italy) lodged on 16 April 2008 — Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Trieste v Pometon S.p.A.
   (Case C-158/08)
   (2008/C 158/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Trieste
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Trieste (Trieste Customs Authority)

      Respondent: Pometon S.p.A.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can it be correctly held that the inward processing procedure, as implemented by Pometon S.p.A., can infringe the principles of the customs policy of the Community, and, in particular, those of the general and specific anti-dumping legislation, as well as those of the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)? (1) In particular, is Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) to be interpreted as a principle of general application, applicable as a general stipulation of the Community legal order, also directly binding in relations between national authorities and taxpayers, as well as in the procedure for imposing anti-dumping duty; for example, can that principle be invoked in carrying out customs controls, as defined in Article 4(14) of the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92?

               2.

               Can the combined provisions of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, in respect of evasion of anti-dumping rules, of Article 114 et seq. of the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92), in respect of inward processing, and of Articles 202, 204, 212 and 240 thereof, in respect of the incurrence of the customs debt, be interpreted as meaning that the subjection of goods to anti-dumping duty is not precluded by the prearranged acquisition of the same product from an entity with the nationality of a country not subject to anti-dumping duty, which has, in its turn, acquired that product in a country subject to such duty and has, without altering it in any way, imported it temporarily into the Community under the inward processing procedure, in order to re-import it processed, but temporarily and for only a few hours, and re-sell it immediately to the same Community company which had undertaken the inward processing?

               3.

               Whether, in the absence of Community provisions on sanctions, which this court has failed to find, the court of the Member State may apply rules of its own legal order which enable it to declare, their requirements being met, the annulment of the contracts of assignment for inward processing and of sale of the compensating product, such as Articles 1343 (illegality), 1344 (contract to evade the law) and 1345 (illegal motive) of the Italian Civil Code, and Article 1414 et seq. of the Italian Civil Code in respect of pretence, where infringement of the Community principles referred to above is established?

               4.

               Whether, for any other reasons or criteria of interpretation which it may please the Court to state, the operation described above, where it is prearranged in order to circumvent anti-dumping duty, complies with the inward processing procedure or whether it actually infringes customs principles for the application of anti-dumping duty which the Court may wish to indicate?

               5.

               Whether, for any other reasons or criteria of interpretation which it may please the Court to state, the operation in question constitutes a definitive import of product subject to anti-dumping duty?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2004 in Case C-447/03 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Waste management — Factory site and waste in province of Foggia — Directive 75/442/EEC amended by Directive 91/156/EEC — Articles 4 and 8)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 25 November 2004
   in Case C-447/03 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Waste management - Factory site and waste in province of Foggia - Directive 75/442/EEC amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4 and 8)
   (2005/C 19/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-447/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Amorosi and M. Konstantinidis) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 October 2003 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste, stored or deposited in dumps on the site of the former Enichem Manfredonia factory (province of Foggia, Italy) and at the Pariti I urban waste dump near Manfredonia, is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the holder of the waste stored or deposited in dumps on the site of Enichem's former factory, also situated near Manfredonia, and the holder of the waste in the Pariti I dump and Conte di Troia urban waste dump 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 II B to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, or recover or dispose of it themselves, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 8 of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-455/09: Order of the President of the Court of 22 September 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 September 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-455/09) (1)

   2011/C 80/32
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 May 1997 in Case C-355/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH (TWD) v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Commission decisions suspending payment of certain aids until previous unlawful aid has been repaid)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/9
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  M. Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA, 7-9
                        (Fourth Chamber)                              Boulevard Royal — appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                         of 15 May 1997                               (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 September
in Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA v. Commission of the                   1995 in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 TWD v.
                   European Communities ( ')                          Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-2265 , seeking to have that
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
  (Appeal — State aid — General aid — Definition of aid)              being one Commission of the European Communities
                           ( 97/C 199/ 15                             (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Anders Jessen ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
                                                                      Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and
                 (Language of the case: French)                       L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, C. N. . Kakouris,
                                                                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann ( Rapporteur),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.Tesauro,
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                      judgment on 15 May 1997, in which it:
In Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA ( represented by Michel
Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn) —                    I. dismisses the appeal;
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 8 June              2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
1995 in Case T-459/93 Siemens v. Commission [ 1995]
ECR 11-1675 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the            (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agents : Jean-Paul Keppenne and,
subsequently, Gerard Rozet) — the Court ( Fourth
Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ),
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                                (First Chamber)
on 15 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                                of 15 May 1997
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                             in Case C-405/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from ' the Finanzgericht München ): Bioforce GmbH v.
2 . orders Siemens to pay the costs.                                                Oberfinanzdirektion München (')
                                                                      (Common customs tariff — Heading 3004 — Echinacea
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                                              — Medicament)
                                                                                97/C 199/ 17
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                         of 15 May 1997
in Case C-3 55/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH                      In Case C-405/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  (TWD ) v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )              of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht München
                                                                      ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(State aid — Commission decisions suspending payment of
                                                                      pending before that court between Bioforce GmbH and
   certain aids until previous unlawful aid has been repaid)
                                                                      Oberfinanzdirektion München — on the interpretation of
                             97/C 199/16 )                            headings 3004 and 2208 of Annex I to Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2551 /93 of 10 August 1993
                (Language of the case: German)                        amending Annex I to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/
                                                                      87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 241 , 27. 9 . 1993 , p. 1 ),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        on the classification of echinacea extract drops — the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President
                                                                      of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet
In Case C-3 55/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH                      ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
(TWD ), a company incorporated under German law,                      H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment
established in Deggendorf ( Germany ), represented by                 on 15 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and Karl-Heinz Schupp,
Rechtsanwälte, Deggendorf, assisted by Michael                        The Common Customs Tariff, in the version established in
Schweitzer, Professor at the University of Passau, with an            Annex 1 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551 /93 of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                    1 0 August 1 993 amending Annex I to Council Regulation


title: Case C-52/06: Order of the President of the Court of 25 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-52/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/71)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.


               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/39

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-689/13
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 85 of 22 March 2014, p. 21
      )
   2014/C 129/47
   The OJ notice in Case T-689/13 Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission should read as follows:

         ‘Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission

         (Case T-689/13)
         2014/C 85/37
         Language of the case: English

            Parties

            Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain); Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Koppers Netherlands BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland); Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom); Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA (Madrid, Spain); SGL Carbon GmbH (Meitingen, Germany); SGL Carbon GmbH (Bad Goisern am Hallstättersee, Austria); SGL Carbon (Passy, France); SGL Carbon, SA (La Coruña, Spain); SGL Carbon Polska S.A. (Racibórz, Poland); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany); and Tokai Erftcarbon GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Commission

            Form of order sought

         The applicants claim that the Court should:

                     —

                     Declare the Application admissible and well-founded;

                     —

                     Annul the Contested Act as far as it classifies CTPHT as H400 and H410;

                     —

                     Order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

         The Applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (‘the CLP Regulation’) (OJ L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high temp CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) (the ‘Contested Act’).
         In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

                     1.

                     First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the REACH and CLP provisions regarding classification of substances as toxic for the aquatic environment and studies which must be accepted for this purpose, as well as the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it rejected studies performed according to REACH and OECD guidelines and it required testing without any accepted standardised method.

                     2.

                     Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on a manifest error of assessment since it failed to take into consideration the inert inherent properties of CTPHT which have notably a significant impact on UV light testing and the application of the summation method; it established M-factors for PAH constituents without a proper assessment of the studies relied upon and it rejected information provided by the Applicants without valid justification.

                     3.

                     Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it breached the EU law principles of transparency and right of defence.’


title: Case C-167/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 158/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,              of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, the French Republic has
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May                         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
      the health of workers and the general public against the dangers        2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      arising from ionising radiation, the French Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                              hof by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the
                                                                              case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
                                                                                Finanzamt Gersheim
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Case C-152/03)
                            (Fourth Chamber)                                                               (2003/C 158/13)
                             of 15 May 2003
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in Case C-484/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                        ties v French Republic ( 1)                           (Federal Tax Court) of 13 November 2002, received at the
                                                                              Court Registry on 2 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                  the case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
97/43/Euratom — Health protection of individuals against                      Finanzamt Gersheim on the following questions:
the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical
                                                                              1.    Is it contrary to Article 43 and Article 56 of the
            exposure — Incomplete implementation)
                                                                                Treaty establishing the European Community if, when
                                                                                determining his taxable income, a natural person who
                             (2003/C 158/12)                                        has full tax liability in Germany and who receives
                                                                                employment income there is not allowed to deduct in
                       (Language of the case: French)                               Germany losses incurred in another Member State from
                                                                                leasing and letting property?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        2.    If that question is answered in the negative: is it contrary
                      in the European Court Reports)                                to Article 43 and Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the
                                                                                European Community if such losses cannot be taken into
                                                                                account for the purposes of the negative tax progression
                                                                                clause (negativer Progressionsvorbehalt)?
In Case C-484/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/43/
Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals                   Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical              the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (OJ 1997
L 180, p. 22), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),                                              (Case C-167/03)
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;                                                      (2003/C 158/14)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June                  represented by M. Van Beek and M. Konstandinidi, of its Legal
      1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers            Service.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.7.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 158/9
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              country (restricted tax liability) are subject to a tax at source of
                                                                          such a nature that a basic allowance or other allowance
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force a system of full       for personal circumstances is not granted, whereas persons
      protection for certain species in Annex II to Council               resident in the country are entitled to such an allowance at the
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 time of ordinary assessment to income tax in respect of all
      vation of wild birds (1), as amended by Council Directive           income which they receive in the Member State and abroad
      94/24/EC of 8 June 1994 ( 2), the Hellenic Republic has             (full tax liability), but where the first mentioned person’s lack
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the             of right to a basic allowance is taken into account, inter alia,
      directive;                                                          by means of a tax rate which is lower than the rate applicable
                                                                          for taxable persons resident in the country?
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic did not
correctly apply Article 7(4) of the directive, since, because late
dates were fixed for the end of the hunting season, it did not
bring into force a system of full protection for certain species          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
in Annex II to the directive. A percentage of those birds,                richtshof by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the
smaller or greater according to species, is not protected from            appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser against Finanzlandesdirek-
hunting activities in the period when they move in search of a                                        tion für Tirol
mate during which their survival is particularly threatened. In
reality such a system does not ensure the full protection of
birds during the stage when they move to their rearing
                                                                                (Case C-172/03)
grounds, in infringement of Article 7(4) of the directive.
( 1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.                                                                   (2003/C 158/16)
( 2) OJ L 164 of 30.6.1994, p. 9.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                          hof (Supreme Administrative Court) of 31 March 2003,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten                 preliminary ruling in the appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser
by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of                    against Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (Regional Finance
        Florian W. Wallentin against Riksskatteverket                     Directorate for the Tyrol) (Appeal Senate I) on the following
                                                                          question:
                         (Case C-169/03)
                         (2003/C 158/15)                                  Is State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC (formerly
                                                                          Article 92 of the EC Treaty) implied by the existence of a rule
                                                                          such as that contained in Article XIV (3) of Federal Law BGBl
                                                                          21/1995, as amended by BGBl 756/1996, whereby in the case
                                                                          of medical practitioners the conversion from turnover liable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          to turnover tax to turnover exempt from turnover tax does
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 April 2003, received at              not, in the case of goods that continue to be used in the
                                                                          business, result in input tax already deducted being reduced
the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          under Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1)?
in the case of Florian W. Walentin against Riksskatteverket on
the following question:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Is Article 39 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding a
Member State’s legislation which provides that natural persons
who are not regarded as resident in the country for tax
purposes but who receive income from employment in the


title: Case C-239/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/34

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-239/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)
   2013/C 225/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: E. Paasivirta and G. Valero Jordana, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action seeking partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim’s action for annulment;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2004 in Case T-120/01: Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (Staff of the European Investment Bank — Admissibility — Working conditions — Disciplinary procedure — Suspension — Dismissal without notice)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 December 2004
   in Case T-120/01: Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (1)

   (Staff of the European Investment Bank - Admissibility - Working conditions - Disciplinary procedure - Suspension - Dismissal without notice)
   (2005/C 19/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-120/01: Carlo De Nicola, established in Rome (Italy), represented by L. Isola, lawyer, against European Investment Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz, F. Mantegazza and C. Camilli, lawyer with an address for service in Luxembourg), – in Case T-120/01, action essentially, first, for annulment of the letter from the Director of Human Resources of the European Investment Bank of 6 March 2001 concerning the conditions for the reinstatement of the applicant following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 [2001] ECR-SC I-A-49 and II-185 and annulment of the decision of the President of the Bank of 22 May 2001 to suspend him from his duties and, second, for damages, and, in Case T-300/01, action essentially, first, for annulment of the decision of the President of the Bank of 6 September 2001 to dismiss him without notice and without a severance grant and, second, for damages – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the defendant of 22 May 2001 suspending the applicant.

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the defendant of 6 September 2001 dismissing the applicant.

               3.

               Orders the defendant to pay the applicant, in compensation for the partial failure to implement paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 23 February 2001, the sum of EUR 3 716, and, where appropriate, financial compensation for leave not taken with default interest from 1 June 2001 until payment. The rate of default interest applicable is calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the Central European Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two percentage points.

               4.

               Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 315 by way of salary not received for the period from 1 March 2001 to 31 August 2001 with default interest from 1 June 2001 until payment. The rate of default interest applicable is calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the Central European Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two percentage points.

               5.

               Orders the defendant to pay the applicant arrears of salary not received from 1 September 2001 with default interest reduced by the sum of EUR 1 290 paid to the applicant by way of geographical mobility allowance for the month of September 2001. The rate of default interest applicable is calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the Central European Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two percentage points.

               6.

               Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 by way of reparation for non-material damage.

               7.

               Orders the defendant to pay its own costs including those incurred in interim proceedings, and half of the costs incurred by the applicant in Cases T-120/01 and T-300/01 and in the interim proceedings in those cases.

               8.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed.

      (1)  OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001 and OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.


title: Case T-48/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — British Airways v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/32

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — British Airways v Commission
   (Case T-48/11)
   2011/C 80/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Lasok, QC, R. O’Donoghue, Barristers, and B. Louveaux, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision in so far as it finds that the applicant was party to an infringement concerning commission on surcharges and/or to remit the matter to the Commission for the reconsideration of its decision on that issue;

               —

               annul the decision in so far as it finds that the start date of the applicant’s infringement was 22 January 2001 and to substitute 1 October 2001 for that date and/or to remit the matter to the Commission for the reconsideration of its decision on that issue;

               —

               annul the decision in so far as it finds that matters relating to Hong Kong, Japan, India, Thailand, Singapore, Korea, and Brazil violated Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA, and Article 8 Swiss Agreement and/or to remit the matter to the Commission for the reconsideration of its decision on that issue;

               —

               annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision by reference to each or every one of the points above and/or the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39.258—Airfreight) concerning the coordination of various elements of the price to be charged for airfreight services on: (i) routes between airports within the EEA; (ii) routes between airports within the EU and airports outside the EEA; (iii) routes between airports in EEA countries that are not Member States of the EU and third countries; and routes between airports within the EU and Switzerland. The coordination found in the decision relates to fuel surcharge, security surcharge, and the payment of commission on surcharges to freight forwarders.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest errors of assessment and inadequate grounds inasmuch as the Commission did not provide sufficiently precise evidence that the applicant participated in the coordination of the payment of commission on surcharges whilst ignoring the significant body of evidence that it had in its possession that demonstrated the opposite.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and breach of the defendant’s duty to prove to the requisite legal standard the starting date of the applicant’s infringement. In this regard the applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the evidence put forward does not satisfy the criteria of precision and consistency in relation to the duration of the infringement;

                           —

                           the Commission’s finding on the starting date is contrary to the principle in dubio pro reo.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the errors in law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 53 EEA in respect of the situation regarding the aviation regulatory legislation and administration regimes in Hong Kong, Japan, India, Thailand, Singapore, Korea, and Brazil, and/or failed to exercise its powers in accordance with the principle of international comity and/or failed to take any or any proper account of the principle of international comity when exercising its powers.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality, the principle that penalties must fit the offence and the principle of equal treatment, since the fine imposed on the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement. In this regard the applicant submits that:

                           —

                           in the case of an object infringement, the Commission is bound to have regard to the “nature” and “capability” in its proper market and economic context assessing and calibrating its gravity;

                           —

                           properly analysed, there were powerful reasons in the present case to regard the applicant’s infringement as less grave that the Commission did in applying its gravity multiplier.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging the breaches of the duty to state adequate reasons and the principle of proportionality in increasing the basic amount of the fine by an additional amount of 16 % for deterrence.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an error in law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment, and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and/or equal treatment and the Leniency Notice, insofar as the Commission granted the applicant the lowest level of reduction in fine in respect of leniency despite being the first undertaking to apply for a reduction in fine under the Leniency Notice.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality in not granting the applicant a reduction of the fine by way of mitigation, insofar as the Commission failed to take equal account of the fact that the applicant had limited participation in the infringement and did not participate in all elements of the infringement.


title: Case T-387/04: Action brought on 27 September 2004 by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/38

         Action brought on 27 September 2004 by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-387/04)
   (2005/C 6/75)
   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 27 September 2004 by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by C.- D. Ehlermann, M. Seyfarth, A. Gutermuth and M. Wissmann, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 7 July 2004 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, communicated by Germany in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC; (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant is a German utility company. Insofar as the power stations operated by the applicant emit greenhouse gases, as from 1 January 2005 the applicant is subject to the Community scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading introduced by Directive 2003/97/EC.
   The applicant challenges, save for a number of matters which are not relevant in the present case, the decision of the Commission which endorsed the national plan communicated by Germany for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances. In particular, the applicant complains of a rule in respect of transfers contained in the plan which allocates to a power station operator who decommissions an old installation and replaces it with a new one the quantity of allowances which it had for the decommissioned installation for a period of four years. In the applicant's view, that gives rise to an over-allocation of allowances which amounts to State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and cannot be justified. The defendant's different assessment in the contested decision is subject to manifest errors in the statement of reasons and does not show sufficient investigation of the facts. The contested decision therefore infringes Article 87(3) EC and Article 88(2) EC.
   Further, in breach of Article 88(2) EC, the defendant failed to initiate the formal State aid procedure, although it must have had considerable doubt about the compatibility of that rule with the EC Treaty.
   In addition, the contested decision infringes Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and criterion 5 of Annex III thereto, as the over-allocation of emission allowances unduly favours competitors of the applicant, which are strengthened because undertakings like the applicant, which have to decommission nuclear power stations in the near future owing to statutory rules, are unjustifiably placed at a disadvantage.
   Finally, the contested decision infringes Article 253 EC owing to numerous gross errors in the statement of reasons.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275 of 25.10.2003, p. 32.


title: Action brought on 4 July 1996 by Ludwig Krämer against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-104/96)

text:
No C 247/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 8 . 96
( f) the reasoning advanced by the Commission in support               legislative activities and application of Community law', in
       of its conclusions does not comply with the                     that it provides for the post to be filled at grade A 4/A 5 , in so
       Commission's obligations under Article 190 of the EC            far as this circumstance prevented him from applying,
       Treaty to state the reasons on which its decisions are          despite the fact that he has held that post for several
       based so as to enable the Court to exercise its powers of       years .
       judicial review, the parties to defend their rights and the
       Member States and other interested parties to ascertain         In the applicant's opinion, the post in question should not
       the circumstances in which the Commission has applied           have been advertised as an A 4/A 5 post since it has all the
       the Treaty .                                                    features for classification as an A 3 post, whether with
                                                                       regard to the tasks associated with the post or to the number
                                                                       of officials serving within the unit. From this the applicant
                                                                       concludes that the contested decision is vitiated by a
                                                                       manifest error in the assessment of the facts as well as by an
Action brought on 4 July 1996 by Ludwig Kramer against                 error of law .
          Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T- 104/96 )                            The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                       Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and a misuse of powers,
                           ( 96/C 247/43 )                             arguing that the decision to advertise the post of head of unit
                                                                       B3 in DG XI as a post at grade A 4/A 5 was not taken in the
                  (Language of the case: French)                       interest of the service but rather with a view to preventing
                                                                       his application in favour of a candidate chosen on the basis
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       of his nationality and not on that of his ability and
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      experience within the relevant area .
Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1996
by Ludwig Kramer, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-209/95 ( )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/44 )
— annul the publication notice for the post of head of unit
     for unit XI . B. 3 as a post at grade A 4/A 5                                    (Language of the case: English)
     ( COM/111 /95 ),
— consequently annul the appointment of a grade A 5                    By order of 15 July 1996 , the President of the First Chamber
     candidate,                                                        ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities ordered the removal from the
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                       register of Case T-209/95 : Windstar Sail Cruises Limited,
                                                                       Wind Star Limited and Wind Spirit Limited v. Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       of the European Communities .
The applicant, a grade A 3 official , contests the vacancy
notice for the post of head of unit XI . B. 3 ' Legal affairs,         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case F-87/09: Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Dekker v Europol

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/80

         Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Dekker v Europol
   (Case F-87/09)
   2010/C 24/153
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Abraham Dekker (Dordrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Dane and P. de Casparis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of Europol of 15 April 2009 refusing to guarantee the amount of the invalidity pension awarded to the applicant (taking into account his other sources of income) at a net income of 90 % of his last gross basic salary and refusing to respond to the negative changes to the applicant’s total net income due to a tax adjustment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 15 April 2009 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it is not required to guarantee a net income of 90 % of the last gross basic salary of the member of staff and that it does not have an obligation to make good the financial loss in so far as the taxation by the Netherlands tax authorities is maintained;

               —

               annul the decision of 23 July 2009 on the complaint which declared the pleas raised by the applicant against the decision of 15 April 2009 unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.