title: Case T-536/15: Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/40

         Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)
   (Case T-536/15)
   (2015/C 371/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Fashion ID’ — Application for registration No 11 589 082

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 in Case R 2472/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision as far as it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the CTM No 11 589 082 with regard to the opposed goods and services in Classes 16 and 41;

               —

               annul the corresponding decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 July 2014 (Case B 2 197 401) as far as the Opposition Division upheld the opposition to reject the CTM No 11 589 082;

               —

               dismiss the Opposition dated 7 June 2012 against the CTM No 11 589 082 in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

               The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal failed to regard the long-standing case law of the General Court and of the Court of Justice according to which the overall impression of signs has to be compared, focusing on the contested CTM as a whole, instead of a comparison of single elements.


title: Case C-300/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch by order of that court of 14 June 2001 in the land register proceedings brought by Doris Salzmann née Greif

text:
27.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 303/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  1.    May nationals of a Member State of the European
Catania — 4th Civil Section by order of 12 July 2001 in                       Union rely on free movement of capital for a domestic
joined civil actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni                     transaction if national law lays down a prohibition of
SpA and Others, and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni                        discrimination against that country’s own nationals but
                            and Others                                        does not expressly guarantee citizens of the Union free
                                                                              movement of capital in the national legislation?
                         (Case C-297/01)
                                                                        2.    Is it compatible with free movement of capital for
                         (2001/C 303/09)                                      authorisation by the land transfer authority, which has
                                                                              constitutive effect, to be required for the acquisition of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        building land which has not been built on?
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court
of 12 July 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on            3.    What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of
26 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the joined civil                    Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on wholly new
actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni SpA and Others                   kinds of situations requiring authorisation under land
and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni and Others on the                      transfer law, not created until after signature of the EEA
following questions:                                                          Agreement on 2 May 1992?
1.    On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may
      transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
      of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
      and come within the scope of the prohibition under
      Article 87 EC?
If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative,
2.    In light of the considerations set out in the grounds
      hereof can the transitional rules under examination come
      within the provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
                                                                        richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 11 July 2001 in
If the answer to Question 2 is negative,                                case of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der
                                                                        Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungs-
3.    In light of the general principles of Community law and           krankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftli-
      in particular those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can          chen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestellten-
      the transitional rules under examination be deemed                krankenkassen e.V., Siegburg, 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
      compatible with the EC Treaty and the Community legal             Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft, 8. See-Krankenkasse
      order?                                                                               gegen Mundipharma Gmbh
                                                                                (Case C-306/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 303/11)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Feldkirch by order of that court of 14 June 2001 in the
land register proceedings brought by Doris Salzmann née
                               Greif                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                         (Case C-300/01)                                (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 11 July 2001 received
                                                                        at the Court Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling on the same questions as referred to the Court in Case
                         (2001/C 303/10)                                C-264/01 (1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch), Austria, of 14 June              (1) See page 5 of this Official Journal.
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the land register proceedings
brought by Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following
questions:


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2001 in Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Fumus boni juris — Urgency — Withdrawal of Community financial assistance)

text:
C 44/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 22 October 2001
                                                                            in Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                              i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim relief — Fumus boni juris —
                                                                            Urgency — Withdrawal of Community financial assistance)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/31)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                      of 12 September 2001
                                                                            In Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                            i Serveis, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by
in Case T-139/01 R Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit                       M.C. Belard-Kopke Marques-Pinto, lawyer, with an address for
Europe Ltd. & Co. v Commission of the European                              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                            Communities                                     Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and S. Pardo Quintillán) —
                                                                            application for suspension of the operation of Commission
                                                                            Decision C(1999) 534 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing Com-
(Interim proceedings — Common organisation of the banana                    munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
market — Allocation of import licences — Admissibility —                    First Instance made an order on 22 October 2001, the
Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Provisional                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    nature of the relief sought)
                                                                            1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                           (2002/C 44/30)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-139/01 R: Comafrica SpA, having its registered                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
office in Genoa (Italy) and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co,                                           INSTANCE
having its registered office in Hamburg (Germany), represented
by Mr. B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and Mr. P.B.G. Martin, Barrister,                                    of 18 October 2001
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
X. Lewis and C. Van der Hauwaert) — application for                         in Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessaloni-
suspension of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of                          kis v Commission of the European Communities
7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for
                                                                            (Interlocutory proceedings — EAGGF — Withdrawal of
importing bananas into the Community and Commission
                                                                                financial assistance — Urgency — None)
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the
adjustment coefficient to be applied to each traditional oper-
ator’s reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of                                       (2002/C 44/32)
bananas — the President of the Court of First Instance has
made an order on 12 September 2001, the operative part of                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
which is as follows:
                                                                            In Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis,
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      represented by D. Nikopoulos, lawyer, v Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) —
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                   application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s
                                                                            decision C(2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001 withdrawing Com-
                                                                            munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 18 October 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-144/89: Cockerill Sambre v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
 No C 137/ 18         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel
                        (First Chamber)                                    mesh) as regards the finding therein that the applicant
                                                                           participated in an agreement intended to limit German
                        of 6 April 1995                                    exports to the Benelux countries;
in Case T-143/89: Ferriere Nord SpA v. Commission of the
                  European Communities ( J )                          2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
 (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC                      by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 252 000;
                               Treaty)
                                                                      3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                           ( 95/C 137/42 )                                 claims;
               (Language of the Case: Italian)
                                                                      4 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
In Case T-143/89 : Ferriere Nord SpA, established in                       three-fifths of the Commission 's costs;
Osoppo ( Italy ), represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of
the Padua Bar, and Giuseppe Campeis, of the Udine Bar,                5 . orders the Commission to bear two-fifths of its costs.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Ernest Arendt, 8—1 0 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission              (>) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
of the European Communities ( Agents : E. Traversa , J.
Currall and A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment
of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
 ( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) — the
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Kirschner, President of Chamber, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,                                     (First Chamber)
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 in                                   of 6 April 1995
which it:
                                                                      in Case T-145/89: Baustahlgewebe GmbH against
 I. dismisses the application;                                               Commission of the European Communities i 1 )
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC
                                                                                Treaty)
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                                               ( 95/C 137/44
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      In Case T-145/89 : Baustahlgewebe GmbH, established in
                        ( First Chamber )                             Diisseldorf, Germany, represented by Arved Deringer,
                        of 6 April 1995                               Claus Tessin , Hans Jiirgen Herrmann, Joaquim Sedemund
in Case T-144/89 : Cockerill Sambre v. Commission of the              and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne, with an
                  European Communities (')                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against Commission of the
(Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                      European Communities ( Agents : N. Koch, B. Langeheine, J.
                               Treaty)                                Currall and A. Bohlke ) — application for the annulment of
                          ( 95/C 137/43 )                             Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989
                                                                      relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
               (Language of the Case: French)                         ( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ), the
                                                                      Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
In Case T-144/89 : Cockerill Sambre, formerly Steelinter SA,
established in Brussels, represented by Michel Waelbroeck             Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.
and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges, Registrar, H.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Jung, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the
                                                                      Court :
Ernest Arendt, 8—1 0 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch , E. Traversa
and J. Currall ) — application for the annulment of                   1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC
Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989                            of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel
( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) —                  mesh) as regards the finding therein that the applicant
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of H.               participated in an agreement with Sotralentz SA
Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.                     subjecting to quotas the latter 's exports to the German
Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges , H. Jung,                      market and the finding that an agreement existed
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the                  between the applicant and Trefilunion to link their
Court :                                                                    future exports to quotas;
1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC               2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
      of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under                      by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 3 million;


C 161/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-237/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-344/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/22)                                                       (2001/C 161/25)
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-237/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-344/99: Italian Republic v Com-
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                     mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-120/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-359/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/23)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/26)
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
the register of Case C-120/00: Commission of the European             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Communities v French Republic.                                        from the register of Case C-359/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix and l’Ariège,
                                                                      France): Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean-Marc Laboup.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/95 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/24)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-21/00 (1)
By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of                                      (2001/C 161/27)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-182/95: (reference for a preliminary      By order of 13 March 2001 the President of the Court of
ruling from Finanzgericht Hamburg): T. Port GmbH & Co v               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.                                           from the register of Case C-21/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa): Hamadeh Adnan v
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                            Sociétà Fiat Sava SpA.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 March 2000 in Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Council of the European Union (Taxation of costs — Costs of an intervener — Lawyer's fees — Travel and accommodation expenses)

text:
27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 149/31
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             A.J. Tweedale Willoughby and, at the hearing, by B.H.E.
                                                                        Halliday, Solicitors, London, with an address for service in
                        of 16 March 2000                                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke, 58
                                                                        Rue Charles Martel, against Office for Harmonisation in the
in Case T-72/98: Astilleros Zamacona SA v Commission                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
              of the European Communities (1)                           F. López de Rego, A. Di Carlo and A. von Mühlendahl) —
                                                                        application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board
                                                                        of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(State aid — Shipbuilding — Article 4(3) of Council                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 1999 (Case
Directive 90/684/EEC — Determination of the ceiling for                 R 150/98-2) refusing registration of the word OPTIONS as a
                          production aid)                               Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                        Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
                         (2000/C 149/58)                                and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2000, in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        1. Dismisses the application;
In Case T-72/98 Astilleros Zamacona SA, established in
Santurce, Spain, represented by A. Creus Carreras, of the               2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Barcelona Bar, and B. Uriarte, of the Madrid Bar, Cabinet
Cuatrecasas, 60 Avenue de Cortenberg, Brussels, Belgium v
                                                                        (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: P. Nem-
itz, M. Desantes and M. Muñoz) — application for the
annulment of Commission Decision 98/157/EC of 5 Novem-
ber 1997 concerning aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros
Zamacona SA in respect of five tugboats (OJ 1998 L 50, p. 38)
— the Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi,
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
16 March 2000, in which it:                                                                     of 7 March 2000
1. Dismisses the action;                                                in Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        (Taxation of costs — Costs of an intervener — Lawyer’s fees
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.98.                                                            — Travel and accommodation expenses)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques, estab-
                                                                        lished in Annemasse, France, represented by C. Momège, of
                        of 30 March 2000                                the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, against Council of the
                                                                        European Union (Agents: originally R. Torrent and J. Monteiro,
in Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company v Office for
                                                                        then Mr Torrent and Y. Cretien, and subsequently Mr Torrent,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                        A. Tanca and P. Bentley), supported by Commission of the
                      Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                        European Communities (Agents: N. Khan and X. Lewis),
                                                                        Péchiney Électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie, France,
(Community trade mark — The word OPTIONS — Absolute                     and Chambre Syndicale de l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électro-
ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article            chimie, established in Paris, represented originally by J.-P.
7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Acquisition through                  Gunther and H. de Broca, of the Paris Bar, then by Mr Gunther
                 use in part of the Community)                          alone, and subsequently by O. Prost, of the Paris Bar, 99-101
                                                                        Rue de la Loi, Brussels — application for taxation of the costs
                         (2000/C 149/59)                                to be reimbursed by the applicant to the intervener Péchiney
                                                                        Électrométallurgie following the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 Industrie des
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Poudres Sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939 — the
                                                                        Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
In Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company, established in Dear-               composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, R.M.
born, Michigan, United States of America, represented by                Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/32                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Registrar, made an order on 7 March 2000, the operative part                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Industrie des
Poudres Sphériques to the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie is       in Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele and others v the
fixed at FRF 207 507,50.                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                                   (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of contested measure
                                                                                — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele, residing in Overijse
                         of 24 February 2000                               (Belgium), Patricia De Palma, residing in Brussels, and Claudine
                                                                           Hamptaux, residing in Brussels, officials of the Commission of
in Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja and Others v Council of                     the European Communities, represented by L. Vogel , of the
                       the European Union (1)                              Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of C.
                                                                           Kremer, of Faltz et Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
(Action for annulment — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
           194/1999 — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)                        sia and J. Currall ) — application for annulment of the elections
                                                                           held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to the Staff Committee of
                                                                           the local Brussels section and the appointments made by that
                           (2000/C 149/61)
                                                                           committee following those elections — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     (Language of the case: English)                       President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February 2000, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja, established in Riga (Latvia),
Zaklady Plyt Pilśniowych SA w Krośnie Odrzańskim, estab-
                                                                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on this application.
lished in Krosno Odrzanskie (Poland), Alpex-Karlino SA w
Karlino, established in Karlino (Poland) and Zaklady Plyt                  2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings
Pilśœniowych SA w Czarnej Wodzie, established in Czarna                        including the costs relating to the application for interim
Woda (Poland) represented by V.N. Akritidis, of the Athens                      measures.
Bar, and T. Pick, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v Council of the European                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe, G.M. Berrisch and
H.-G. Kamann) — application for the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard orig-
inating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties
imposed (OJ 1999 L 22, p. 16) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February                                     of 16 March 2000
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                the European Communities (1)
2. There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application
                                                                           (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
     for leave to intervene.
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
3. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
     and severally, to pay the costs of the Council save for those                                   (2000/C 149/63)
     relating to the preparation and submission of its defence.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                           In Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
                                                                           Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John


title: Case F-33/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2007 — Campoli v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2007 — Campoli v Commission
   (Case F-33/06) (1)

   (2007/C 69/64)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register further to an amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 52.


title: Case C-26/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others v Belgische Staat

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-26/11)
   2011/C 113/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicants

               :

               Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others

               Defendant

               :

               Belgische Staat

               Interveners

               :

                           Belgian Bioethanol Association VZW

                           Belgian Biodiesel Board VZW

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 98/70/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998‘relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC’ as well as, where appropriate, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 26(2), 28 and 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a statutory provision on the basis of which every registered petroleum company which releases petrol products and/or diesel products for consumption is also obliged in the same calendar year to make available for consumption a quantity of sustainable biofuels, namely bio ethanol, pure or in the form of bio ETBE, amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of petrol products released for consumption, and FAME amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of diesel products released for consumption?

               2.

               If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is answered in the negative, should Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council (of 22 June 1998) ‘laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services’, notwithstanding Article 10(1), first indent, of the same Directive, be interpreted as imposing an obligation that the Commission be notified of a draft standard on the basis of which every registered petroleum company which releases petrol products and/or diesel products for consumption is also obliged in the same calendar year to make available for consumption a quantity of sustainable biofuels, namely bio-ethanol, pure or in the form of bio-ETBE, amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of petrol products released for consumption, and FAME amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of diesel products released for consumption?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 350, p. 58

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Mons, by judgment of that Court of 21 September 1995 in the case of Université Catholique de Louvain v. Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez (Case C-305/95)

text:
No C 299/ 12               EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
     — failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply                     Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission
          with Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Directive , and                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
     — authorizing the creation of a disposal site for special
          waste in Mainhausen and the construction of a                                                   ( Case C-304/95 )
          motorway near Luneburg without observing the                                                      ( 95/C 299/ 19 )
          procedure prescribed in the Directive ,
     — the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
          its obligations under Article 5 and the third                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
          paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and under                    25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
          Articles 2 , 3 , 5 ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ), 8 , 9 and 12(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the   Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
          Directive ;                                                            its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                             Kirchberg.
     costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
— although the timelimit for the transposition of the
    Directive expired on 3 July 1 988 , the defendant did not                    1 . declare , that by not bringing into force , the laws,
    take any measures until it adopted the 'UVP-Gesetz ' of                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     12 January 1990, which entered into force on 1 August                            comply with Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February
     1990 ,                                                                           1992 amending and updating Directive 77/99/EEC on
                                                                                health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
— the duty to inform the Commission provided for in                                   meat products and amending Directive 64/433/EEC ('),
    Article 12 ( 2 ) of the Directive also covers rules enacted                       or at least not notifying those provisions to the
    by the Lander and provisions in force prior to the                                Commission within the prescribed period, the Hellenic
    adoption of the Directive; the existence of paragraph 4                           Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
    of     the    UVP-Gesetz            shows       that   the   defendant            and Directive 92/5/EEC ;
    presupposes that provisions enacted by the Lander are
    applicable to the field covered by the Directive ,
                                                                                2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
— paragraph 22 of the UVP-Gesetz provides that
    proceedings already commenced are to be completed in
    accordance with its provisions only where they had not                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    yet been publicly notified when the UVP-Gesetz entered
    into force ,                                                                The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189 of the
                                                                                Treaty requires the Member States to bring into force the
— in the Commission 's view, all the projects set out under                      provisions necessary for transposing into national law the
    the various letters in points 1 to 1 1 of Annex II to the                   directives of which they are the addressees before the expiry
    Directive are to be regarded as 'classes ' within the                       of the period provided therefor and immediately to notify
    meaning of Article 4 of the Directive . Paragraph 3 of the                  those provisions to the Commission . That period expired on
    UVP-Gesetz sets threshold values or criteria for some ,                      1 January 1993 without the Hellenic Republic bringing into
    but not all , of such classes; for the remaining classes , the               force the necessary provisions or indeed notifying those
    UVP-Gesetz does not make any provision for project                           provisions to the Commission .
    assessment in individual cases ,
— although the defendant has specified , in accordance with                      (') OJ No L 57 , n . 1 .
    the Directive, the documents to be submitted by the
    developer, the provisions in question are applicable only
    ' in so far as the . . . said documents are not defined in
    detail in a legislative provision '. The Commission does
    not share the defendant's view that on a proper
    interpretation of the UVP-Gesetz the rules laid down by
    the specific technical legal provisions are to be applied
    only where their requirements at least correspond to
    those of the UVP-Gesetz,                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail,
                                                                                Mons , by judgment of that Court of 21 September 1995 in
— it cannot be deduced from the documents submitted by                          the case of Universite Catholique de Louvain v. Francine
    the defendant that the obligations imposed by Articles 2 ,                                    Plapied and Danielle Gallez
    3 , 5 ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ), 8 and 9 of the Directive were complied                                           Case C-305 /95 )
    with in the case of the Mainhausen and Luneburg
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/20 )
    projects .
(') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95         fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 299/ 13
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Mons, of 21 September                 provisions necessary to comply with the directives referred
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                     to in the conclusions of the Commission .
26 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Universite Catholique de Louvain ( Catholic University of              (') Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing
Louvain ) v. Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez on the                     Community measures for the control of avian influenza ( OJ No
following questions :                                                        L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November              1990
'Do supplementary family allowances which are calculated                     concerning public health and animal health problems affecting
                                                                             the production and placing on the market of rabbit meat and
on a flat-rate basis according to the number of children                     farmed game meat ( OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 41 ).
concerned and which an individual employer pays to his
employees , either under the terms of a collective labour
agreement or on a voluntary, unilateral basis, constitute pay
within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?
In the event that the first question is answered in the                Action brought on 27 September 1995 by the Kingdom of
affirmative, if an employer infringes the rule of equal                the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
treatment for men and women contained in that provision ,                                             Communities
are the employees affected entitled under Community law                                            ( Case C-308/95 )
to claim payment of arrears of supplementary family
allowances as from 8 April 1976 , in order to ensure that the                                        ( 95/C 299/22 )
period in respect of which they may bring an action is the
same as that for a comparable right of action under Belgian            An action against the Commission of the European
law ?'                                                                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 27 September 1995 by the
                                                                       Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J. S. van der
                                                                       Oosterkamp and M. A. Fierstra, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands
                                                                       Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo .
Action brought on 26 September 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United                         The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court
                             Kingdom                                   should :
                        ( Case C-306/95 )
                          ( 95/C 299/21 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 28 July 1995
                                                                             concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
                                                                             projects co-financed prior to 1989 by the European
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before                       Regional Development Fund,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1995 by the Commission of the European                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.                                              — Infringement of the Treaty or of certain rules for its
                                                                              implementation and/or infringement of essential
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                  procedural requirements, concerning in particular the
                                                                              provision of a statement of reasons for the decision
1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the measures                  ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), and/or breach of general
     necessary to comply with Council Directives                              principles of Community law: the letter of 28 July 1995
     92/40/EEC (') and 91 /495/EEC ( 2 ) in Northern Ireland,                 from the Commissioner responsible for regional policy
     or in the alternative by failing to inform the Commission                constitutes the final act in the decision-making process,
     forthwith thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to                      by which the Commission reached a definitive decision
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives and in                     concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
     particular Article 22 thereof and under the Treaty                       the Netherlands infrastructure projects decided on
     establishing the European Community;                                     by the Commission before 1 January 1989 under the
                                                                              European Regional Development Fund ( ERDF ). The
2 . order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .                               Commission 's view that the timelimit of 31 March 1995
                                                                              constitutes a final deadline is based on an incorrect, or at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           least incomprehensible, interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall                   amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 4254/88 laying down
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                        provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                     2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                       Fund ( hereinafter 'the 1993 ERDF Regulation'). The
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January                      way in which the Commission has applied Article 12 of
 1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the                           the 1993 ERDF Regulation in the contested decision,


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-108/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-129/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
                         (2003/C 55/64)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-274/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/67)
                                                                    By order of 5 December 2002 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-120/02 ( 1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-274/02: Commission of the
                         (2003/C 55/65)                             European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-120/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                                Removal from the register of Case C-356/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/68)
        Removal from the register of Case C-129/02 ( 1)             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 55/66)                             from the register of Case C-356/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles): Anne Hennecart
                                                                    v Office National de l’Emploi.
By order of 17 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-5/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Unforeseeable circumstances — Excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-5/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Unforeseeable circumstances - Excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 96/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent, assisted by J.-P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision set out in the letter of 18 October 2006, refusing to repay the applicant the sum paid by it in settlement of the principal amount owed plus interest in respect of debts to the European Social Fund
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-345/98)

text:
C 327/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                       administrative action necessary to comply with
                                                                       Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event,                  the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
    by failing to communicate to the Commission                        purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
    the provisions laid down by law, regulation or                     relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
    administrative action necessary to comply with                     properties on a timeshare basis, the Italian Republic
                                                                       has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    Ð Commission Directive 95/12/EC of 23 May 1995
         implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with
         regard to energy labelling of household washing           Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
         machines (1),
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Ð Commission Directive 95/13/EC of 23 May 1995
         implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with
         regard to energy labelling of household electric          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in accordance with which a
         tumble driers (2),                                        directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                   each Member State to which it is addressed, obliges
                                                                   Member States to respect the time-limits for
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfill its obligations
                                                                   implementation prescribed by directives. When the time-
    under those directives;
                                                                   limit expired on 30 April 1997 the Italian Republic had
                                                                   not adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     directive referred to in the forms of order sought by the
                                                                   Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in accordance with which
a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
obliges Member States to respect the time-limits
for implementation prescribed by directives. When the
time-limit expired on 1 March 1996 the Italian Republic            Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission
had not adopted the provisions necessary to comply with                   of the European Communities against Ireland
the directives referred to in the forms of order sought by                                (Case C-345/98)
the Commission.
                                                                                (98/C 327/26)
(1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 28.
                                                                   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities on 22 September
                                                                   1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                   represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbaek, a member of its
                                                                   Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                   seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of               exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
    the European Communities against Italian Republic              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                       (Case C-335/98)                             Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner.
                         (98/C 327/25)
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
11 September 1998 by Commission of the European
                                                                       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                       comply with Directive 94/9/EC (1) of the European
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                       Parliament and Council, of 23 March 1994, on the
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                       approximation of the laws of the Member States
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       concerning equipment and protective systems intended
                                                                       for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, Ireland
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                       and
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
    failing to communicate to the Commission the                   Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 327/17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/28)
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the          By order of 23 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 September          removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (reference
1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                 for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht,
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the          Düsseldorf): Stadt Dormagen v Bezirksregierung
conclusions of the Commission.                                     Düsseldorf.
(1) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (1)
                         (98/C 327/27)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-357/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/29)
By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (reference for          By order of 24 August 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Padova): Tommaso Nalon v Ente Poste Italiane.                      removal from the register of Case C-357/97: Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance            Ð Mr Cooke,
                         (98/C 327/30)
                                                                       Ð Mr Jaeger.
At their meeting on 17 September 1998 the Judges of the
Court of First Instance elected, pursuant to Article 7 of
the Rules of Procedure, Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President           B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
of the Court of First Instance for the period from                     to the Chambers as follows:
17 September 1998 to 31 August 2001.
                                                                       to the First Chamber:
                                                                       Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,
Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the                      Judges;
                composition of the Chambers
                         (98/C 327/31)
                                                                       to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of                  Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Pirrung,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in              Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
respect of the period between 21 September 1998 and
30 September 1999:
                                                                       to the Second Chamber:
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
    Ð Mr Potocki,
                                                                       Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy and
    Ð Mr Moura Ramos,                                                  Mr Meij, Judges;


title: Case T-433/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Davi v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2003 Promotion procedure — Decision not to promote — Award of promotion points — Consideration of the comparative merits — Equal treatment — General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Davi v Commission
   (Case T-433/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2003 Promotion procedure - Decision not to promote - Award of promotion points - Consideration of the comparative merits - Equal treatment - General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Legitimate expectations)
   (2007/C 170/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Angela Davi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, initially, and subsequently by C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, first, of the Appointing Authority's decision of 2 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint against that authority's decision not to promote her to Grade C2 for the 2003 promotion procedure and, secondly, in so far as necessary, of the original decision which was the subject of that complaint.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-146/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 90/641/Euratom — Protection of workers — Outside workers exposed to the risk of ionising radiation during their activities in controlled areas)

text:
27.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 180/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 June 2002
                            of 6 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-177/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-146/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls
Directive 90/641/Euratom — Protection of workers —                                                         (PCB/PCT))
Outside workers exposed to the risk of ionising radiation
            during their activities in controlled areas)                                                (2002/C 180/12)
                           (2002/C 180/11)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                              in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-177/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:
                                                                            G. de Bergues and D. Colas): Application for a declaration that,
                                                                            by failing to communicate to the Commission a summary of
                                                                            the inventories of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
In Case C-146/01, Commission of the European Communities                    5 dm3, a plan for the decontamination and/or disposal of the
(Agent: L. Ström, assisted by M. van der Woude) v Kingdom of                inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein, and an
Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx): Application for a declaration that,             outline for the collection and subsequent disposal of equip-
by failing to adopt or to notify to the Commission, within the              ment which is not subject to inventory in accordance with
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative                 Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September
provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4(2), 5 and 6 of,              1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and
and Annexes I and II to, Council Directive 90/641/Euratom of                polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31),
4 December 1990 on the operational protection of outside                    as referred to in Article 6(3) of that directive, the French
workers exposed to the risk of ionising radiation during their              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and
activities in controlled areas (OJ 1990 L 349, p. 21), the                  11 of that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under               of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                     A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                   2002, in which it:
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June
2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities a summary of the inventories of
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,           equipment with PCB volumes of more than 5 dm3, a plan
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to            for the decontamination and/or disposal of the inventoried
      comply with Articles 4(2), 5 and 6 of, and Annexes I and II                 equipment and the PCBs contained therein, and an outline for
      to, Council Directive 90/641/Euratom of 4 December 1990                     the collection and subsequent disposal of equipment which is
      on the operational protection of outside workers exposed to the             not subject to inventory in accordance with Article 4(1) of
      risk of ionising radiation during their activities in controlled            Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on
      areas, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated
      under that directive;                                                       terphenyls (PCB/PCT), as referred to in Article 6(3) of that
                                                                                directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 4 and 11 of that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.


title: Case T-406/06: Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/38

         Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-406/06)
   (2007/C 42/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision (DG ENV) to reject the applicant's bid and to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission (DG ENV) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

               —

               order the Commission (DG ENV) to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 86 300.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of services to support Registries Systems established under Directive 2003/87 (1) with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006/S 102-108793). The applicant contests the decision to reject its bid and to award the contract to another bidder.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant committed several errors of assessment and violated the principles of equal treatment and transparency. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the defendant did not state reasons for its decision by not informing the applicant of the merits of the successful tender compared to the applicant's tender.

      (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 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Judgment of the Court of 19 September 2000 in Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (Aid granted to undertakings in the new German Länder — Tax provision favouring investment)

text:
C 316/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
2.     Article 30 of the Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       preclude a national provision from requiring the use of a specific
       language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for
       the possibility for another language easily understood by                                   of 19 September 2000
       purchasers to be used or for the purchaser to be informed by
       other means.
                                                                            in Case C-454/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesfinanzhof): Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                  v Finanzamt Borken and Manfred Strobel v Finanzamt
                                                                                Esslingen (1)
                                                                            (Sixth VAT Directive — Obligation of Member States to
                                                                            provide for the possibility of adjusting tax improperly
                                                                            mentioned on an invoice — Conditions — Good faith of
                                                                                issuer of invoice)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (2000/C 316/22)
                       of 19 September 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Aid granted to undertakings in the new German Länder —                                          in the European Court Reports)
               Tax provision favouring investment)
                                                                            In Case C-454/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                           (2000/C 316/21)                                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                            (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the proceedings pending before that court between Schmeink
                                                                            & Cofreth AG & Co. KG and Finanzamt Borken and between
                    (Language of the case: German)                          Manfred Strobel and Finanzamt Esslingen — on the interpret-
                                                                            ation of Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive of
                                                                            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                    in the European Court Reports)                          added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
                                                                            — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón (Presi-
In Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                      dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann,
C.-D. Quassowski, assisted by K.A. Schroeter) v Commission                  H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; N. Fennel-
of the European Communities (Agents: P.F. Nemitz and D. Tri-                ly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
antafyllou, assisted by M. Hilf) — application for a annulment              on 19 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
of Commission Decision 98/476/EC of 21 January 1998 on
tax concessions under Paragraph 52(8) of the German Income
Tax Act (the Einkommensteuergesetz) (OJ 1998 L 212, p. 50)                  1.    Where the issuer of the invoice has in sufficient time wholly
— the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                    eliminated the risk of any loss in tax revenues, the principle of
L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,                     the neutrality of VAT requires that VAT which has been
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rappor-                     improperly invoiced can be adjusted without such adjustment
teur) and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;                        being made conditional upon the issuer of the relevant invoice
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                      having acted in good faith.
trar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it:
                                                                            2.    It is for the Member States to lay down the procedures to apply
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                 as regards the adjustment of improperly invoiced VAT, provided
                                                                                that such adjustment is not dependent on the discretion of the
                                                                                tax authorities.
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.


title: Case T-75/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission
   (Case T-75/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2016/C 048/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul those decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.