title: Case T-301/01: Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Alitalia — Linee aeree italiane S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola                       —     implied refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in that
              against European Investment Bank                                   it was only by letter of 13 June 2001 that the President
                                                                                of the EIB informed the applicant of the misconduct and
                                                                                infringements alleged against him, dating back to 1998.
                          (Case T-300/01)                                        Such delay moreover is in breach of the employee’s rights
                                                                                of defence;
                           (2002/C 44/43)                                  —     that the Disciplinary Board was irregularly constituted.
                                                                                The applicant claims in that respect that Article 40 of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations is unlawful inasmuch as it does not
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              provide in any event for the substitution of the Head of
                                                                                Personnel, despite the existence of a dispute between him
                                                                                and the applicant, and inasmuch as there is no provision
                                                                                requiring a quorum of 4 voting members;
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought                 —     infringement of the procedure provided for in Article 40
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   of the Staff Regulations;
on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi
Isola, lawyer.                                                             —     irregularity of the verbal dismissal of 6 September 2001,
                                                                                inasmuch as such dismissal is not provided for by any
                                                                                Community or other provision, and it was moreover
                                                                                intimated by the Director of the Rome office, whereas the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Staff Regulations accords this power only to the President
                                                                                of the EIB;
—     annul the verbal dismissal of 6 September 2001 notified
      to the applicant by Thomas Beckett, the director of the              —     irregularity of the dismissal of 12 September 2001. The
      Rome office, the subsequent dismissal served on the                        applicant points out in that respect that the misconduct
      applicant by letter received on 12 September 2001,                         leading to the disciplinary measure is certainly not held
      signed by the President of the European Investment                         to be serious since the President, by virtue of Article 39
      Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, together with all other                     of the Staff Regulations, could have immediately sus-
      consequent and related acts, including necessarily certain                 pended the official. Furthermore, the defendant made
      articles of the Staff Regulations and the Code of Conduct,                 hardly any mention of specific times and places nor
      in so far as the latter applies to the applicant;                          adduced evidence of the misconduct but instead sought
                                                                                to dismiss him for failure to cooperate during the
                                                                                disciplinary proceedings despite his never having been
—     order the EIB to reinstate the applicant, restore his career               accused of such failure.
      as from February 1999 and pay the remuneration due to
      him in the meantime (together with interest) and pay the
      costs of the proceedings and damages in the terms set out            (1) Judgment of 23 February 2001 ECR-SC 2001 I-A-49, II-185.
      below and to be further expounded in the course of                   (2) OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30.
      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Alitalia —
                                                                           Linee aeree italiane S.p.A. against the Commission of the
The applicant in the present action, who is challenging his                                    European Communities
dismissal by the defendant and the facts surrounding it, is the
same one as in T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v
EIB (1) and T-120/01 De Nicola v EIB (2).                                                           (Case T-301/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/44)
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     that the Code of Conduct does not apply to him,
      inasmuch as it is a unilateral act drawn up and issued
      solely by the employer, not being required by the
      individual contract of employment or by the Staff Regu-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      lations;                                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/25
European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Alitalia —                  —     breach of the principle of sound administration, legal
Linee aeree italiane S.p.A., represented by Mario Siragusa, Gian              certainty and legitimate expectations, as well as of the
Michele Roberti, Giuseppe Scassellati, Francesca Maria Moretti                obligation imposed by Article 4(5) of Council Regulation
and Francesco Sciaudone, lawyers.                                             (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
                                                                              detailed rules for the application of Article 93 EC (3),
                                                                              inasmuch as the aforementioned general principles and
                                                                              provision required the Commission to act within two
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   months;
—     annul the second decision in its entirety;                        —     breach of the rights of defence of the applicant, given
                                                                              that it was impossible for the applicant to defend itself by
                                                                              participating in the administrative procedure leading to
—     in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the second decision              the adoption of the contested act;
      in so far as it subjects compatibility of the injection of
      capital to compliance with the conditions laid down in
      the first decision;                                               —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1) OJ 2001 L 271, p. 28.
                                                                        (2) Case T-296/97 Alitalia v Commission [2000] ECR II-3871.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action has been brought against Commission
Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001 concerning the
recapitalisation of the applicant company (1). The applicant
claims that that decision reproduces the wording of Articles 1,
2 and 3 of Decision 97/789/EC, whereby the defendant
authorised the aid granted by Italy to Alitalia, in the shape of a      Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Gerhard Bir-
contribution of capital totalling ITL 2 750 billion intended to          khoff against Commission of the European Communities
cover the restructuring of the company. The action against the
latter decision was upheld by the Court (2) on the grounds of
failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment.                                       (Case T-302/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/45)
In the decision under challenge in the present action, the
Commission notes that Article 233 EC does not require it to
reopen the procedure and once again follow all the stages of
that procedure. In regard to the lack of reasoning, the                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
Commission states specifically that the procedure in question
may be taken up again from the stage at which the flaw in
question occurred. So far as manifest errors of assessment are
concerned, the second decision must be based on the factual
evidence gathered when the first decision was adopted and the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
errors identified by the Court relate to assessments of fact the        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
truth of which was not in dispute.                                      European Communities on 10 December 2001 by Gerhard
                                                                        Birkhoff, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, lawyer
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     infringement of Article 233 EC;
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, Directorate General — Admin B, of
—     infringement of Article 88(2) EC inasmuch as the Com-                   26 September 2001, as manifestly unfounded in fact and
      mission could not, in the present case, adopt a new                     in law, together with any preceding, related or subsequent
      decision of content identical to the preceding annulled                 acts, in particular ‘Notification of amendment No 10 to
      decision without initiating once again the procedure                    the demand for payment of 21 February 1992’, issued on
      provided for therein.                                                   4 July 2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2015 in Case E-2/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 on screening of passengers by ETD and HHMD equipment)

text:
               7.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 3/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 15 July 2015
   in Case E-2/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 on screening of passengers by ETD and HHMD equipment)
   (2016/C 3/07)
   In Case E-2/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to make as such part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he, twelfth indent, of Annex XIII to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (‘ETD’) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (‘HHMD’) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he, twelfth indent, of Annex XIII to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-362/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014 — REWE-Zentral/OHIM — Vicente Gandia Pla (MY PLANET)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/31

         Action brought on 27 May 2014 — REWE-Zentral/OHIM — Vicente Gandia Pla (MY PLANET)
   (Case T-362/14)
   2014/C 261/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Köln, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 201/2013-1;

               —

               Condemn the defendant to the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MY PLANET’ for goods in classes 25, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 566 515

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EL MIRACLE PLANET’ for goods in classes 25, 32 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The Opposition was allowed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-668/15: Action brought on 18 November 2015 — Jema Energy v European Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/71

         Action brought on 18 November 2015 — Jema Energy v European Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-668/15)
   (2016/C 027/90)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jema Energy, S.A. (Lasarte-Oria, Spain) (represented by: N. Rey Rey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, Jema Energy, and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, relating to the clarity of the rules applied to the procedure and alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and transparency

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that respect that the tender specifications in the present procedure contain vague and imprecise concepts, for which the applicant was obliged to request several clarifications from the defendant. The applicant submitted very clear questions, leaving no room for doubt. From the outset, F4E provided very ambiguous and sparsely-worded replies.

                           —

                           Given the ambiguity of the selection criteria in the procedure and F4E’s conduct in response to the applicant’s question and actions, the applicant submits that the principles of legal certainty and transparency have been infringed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunities between candidates during the procedure

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that respect that one of the documents that the defendant sent to the applicant at the beginning of the procedure expressly states that if the examples submitted did not fulfil the technical requirements, the bidder would be permitted to present new examples in order to fully meet those requirements. At no point was the applicant advised that it had not fulfilled the requirements, with the result that it never had the opportunity to present other examples. Nonetheless, the reasons that the defendant has given to disqualify JEMA from the tender procedure is that its examples did not fulfil the requirements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the artificial restriction of competition

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that respect that the selection criteria are too strict. F4E requested a reference that fulfils a combination of three requirements (power, voltage and current) which is unnecessary and disproportionate to the needs of the project. In addition, it has requested that a power supply project from the last five years be submitted by way of reference, which is another disproportionate criterion, since undertakings that might have references which fulfil those criteria are manufacturers of frequency inverters for high power motors. Those are typically large undertakings, thereby discouraging the participation of small and medium undertakings.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna) by order of that court of 18 December 1997 in the case of Safet Eyüp v. Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (Regional office of the Vorarlberg employment service) (Case C-65/98)

text:
C 137/12             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             reviewing the decision of that authority or before the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) (Higher Administrative                    Court of Justice of the European Communities when a
Court, Vienna) by order of that court of 18 December                    question is referred for a preliminary ruling, until legal
1997 in the case of Safet Eyüp v. Landesgeschäftsstelle des             protection is finally granted, to prevent serious and
Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (Regional office of the                  irreparable damage, and does the fact that a binding
               Vorarlberg employment service)                           decision as to whether the objective requirements are
                       (Case C-65/98)                                   met for freedom of movement under the association
                                                                        agreement is not taken immediately, but at a later date
                        (98/C 137/24)                                   in certain cases, constitute such damage?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European      Communities      by     an    order    of    the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) of 18 December 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safet Eyüp v.
Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg            Action brought on 11 March 1998 by the Commission of
on the following questions.                                           the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-66/98)
1. Is the concept of members of the family in the first
                                                                                (98/C 137/25)
    sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
    Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
    development of the Association between the European
    Economic Community and Turkey to be interpreted as              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    meaning that the partner (in a relationship resembling          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    marriage with no formal matrimonial bond) of a                  11 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
    Turkish worker also meets the relevant objective                Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
    requirements?                                                   Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. If a partner is not to be regarded as a member of the
    family:
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    is the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of
    Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that, to
    meet the objective requirements, the formal                     1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    matrimonial bond between the Turkish worker and the                 or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
    family member must have lasted for five years without
    interruption, or is it permissible for periods during               Ð Commission Directive 93/18/EEC of 5 April 1993
    which there is a formal matrimonial bond with a                          adapting for the third time to technical progress
    partner to be interrupted by many years of                               Council      Directive    88/379/EEC      on      the
    cohabitation with the same partner?                                      approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions of the Member States
3. Is the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of                relating to the classification, packaging and
    Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that                       labelling of dangerous preparations (1),
    the formal dissolution of the matrimonial bond (for
    instance by divorce) with the Turkish worker
                                                                        Ð European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/
    invalidates all previous periods of compliance, as a
                                                                             EC of 20 December 1994 amending for the 14th
    member of the family, with the conditions as to time?
                                                                             time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation
                                                                             of the laws, regulations and administrative
4. Does Community law require that the (directly                             provisions of the Member States relating to
    effective) rights deriving from Articles 6 and 7 of                      restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
    Decision No 1/80 in a Member State for the group of                      dangerous substances and preparations (2),
    people designated therein be safeguarded by providing
    provisional legal protection in certain cases in the
    form of positive (prescriptive) interim measures?                   or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                        Italian Republic has failed to fultil its obligations
5. If question 4 is answered in the affirmative:                        within the meaning of the EC Treaty, and
    is there a need for positive (prescriptive) interim
    measures on the basis of Community law to the effect            2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
    that in certain cases (where an applicant invokes rights
    within the meaning of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    No 1/80) the freedom of movement sought on the
    basis of the association agreement is provisionally
    granted for the duration of the proceedings before the          Within the meaning of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    competent administrative authority, before the court            according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the


title: Case C-393/05: Action brought on  4 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/13

         Action brought on 4 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-393/05)
   (2006/C 10/26)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Gerald Braun, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil it obligations under Article 49 EC in requiring that private inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products, which have a registered office in and are approved in another Member State, must maintain a place of business or other permanent infrastructure in Austria in order to be able to carry out their activities there;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Austrian authorities require of every inspection body in the field of organic production of agricultural products having a registered office in and approved in another Member State that it must also maintain a registered office or place of business in Austria in order to be allowed to carry out business activities in Austria. This requirement is contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services as it renders impossible the supply of services in Austria by companies with an establishment in other Member States.
   Under Article 49 freedom to provide services is to be understood as the right, without hindrance, from a base in one Member State, to provide individual services in another Member State without maintaining a permanent establishment there. According to the settled case-law of the Court, the guarantee of freedom to provide services requires not only the removal of all discrimination on the basis of nationality but also the abolition of all restrictions which lend themselves to prohibiting, hindering or rendering less attractive the activities of a services provider who has an establishment in another Member State and regularly renders similar services there. Article 49 therefore precludes the application of a national regulation or administrative practice which, without objective justification, restricts the opportunity for a services provider to actually make use of the freedom to provide services.
   The reasons given by the Republic of Austria — the alleged exercise of official authority by the inspection bodies and the public interest — are not such as to justify that restriction on the freedom to provide services. Reference to the exercise of official authority as a justification for the present restriction on the freedom to provide services would only be lawful and acceptable if the activity in question were one which constitutes direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority. However, the inspection bodies are not public authorities: they cannot compulsorily enforce sanctions, they issue no public documents and the legal relationship between an inspection body and a producer is governed purely by private law.
   The fact that an inspection body has no place of business in Austria does not jeopardise the public interest as the real control according to Community law criteria takes place when the inspection body in question is approved and examined by the public authorities of the approving Member State. In the present case Community coordination measures and harmonisation provisions also exist, which ensure that the interest which the Republic of Austria is putting forward is also pursued according to the same standards in other Member States.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 December 1997 in Case C-188/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret: Fantask A/S and Others v. Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) (Directive 69/335/EEC - Registration charges on companies - Procedural time-limits under national law)

text:
C 41/4                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
1. declares that, by not having within the period                     national, the competent social security institutions and the
     prescribed adopted all the laws, regulations and                 courts of a Member State must accept certificates and
     administrative provisions necessary to ensure that               analogous documents relative to personal status issued by
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991                     the competent authorities of the other Member States,
     concerning the placing of plant protection products on           unless their accuracy is seriously undermined by concrete
     the market Ð with the exception of Article 10 (1),               evidence relating to the individual case in question.
     second indent, thereof Ð was transposed into
     domestic law, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;           (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.
2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 December 1997
                                                                      in Case C-188/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the éstre Landsret: Fantask A/S and Others v.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) (1)
                       of 2 December 1997
                                                                      (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Registration charges on
in Case C-336/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               companies Ð Procedural time-limits under national law)
the Sozialgericht Hamburg): Eftalia Dafeki v. Landesver-
               sicherungsanstalt Württemberg (1)                                               (98/C 41/07)
(Freedom of movement for workers Ð Equal treatment Ð
Social security Ð Rule of national law according different
probative value to certificates of civil status depending on                         (Language of the case: Danish)
        whether they are of national or foreign origin)
                           (98/C 41/06)
                (Language of the case: German)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    In Case C-188/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret, Denmark, for
                                                                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
In Case C-336/94: reference to the Court under Article 177            that court between Fantask A/S and Others and
of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht (Social Court)                Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) Ð on the
Hamburg (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                    interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
proceedings pending before that court between Eftalia                 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
Dafeki and Landesversicherungsanstalt Württemberg Ð                   (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as most
on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                 recently amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
Treaty in the light of German provisions under which                  10 June 1985 (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court
certificates of civil status are accorded different probative         composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
value, depending on whether they are German or foreign                Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
Ð the Court, composed of: H. Ragnemalm (President of                  Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
the Fourth and Sixth Chambers), acting for the President,             P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,               Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann                 Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,                     Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                2 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December                 follows:
1997, in which it has ruled:
In proceedings for determining the entitlements to social             1. On a sound construction of Article 12 (1)(e) of
security benefits of a migrant worker who is a Community                   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 41/5
    concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    most recently amended by Council Directive 85/303/
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
    EEC of 10 June 1985, in order for charges levied on
    registration of public and private limited companies                                of 4 December 1997
    and on their capital being increased to be by way of
    fees or dues, their amount must be calculated solely on         in Case C-97/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    the basis of the cost of the formalities in question. It        the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Verband deutscher
    may, however, also cover the costs of minor services             Daihatsu-Händler eV v. Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH (1)
    performed without charge. In calculating their
                                                                    (Company law Ð Annual accounts Ð Penalties for non-
    amount, a Member State is entitled to take account of
                                                                    publication Ð Article 6 of the First Directive 68/151/
    all the costs related to the effecting of registration,
                                                                                EEC)
    including the proportion of the overheads which may
    be attributed thereto. Furthermore, a Member State                                      (98/C 41/08)
    may impose flat-rate charges and fix their amount for
    an indefinite period, provided that it checks at regular
    intervals that they continue not to exceed the average                        (Language of the case: German)
    cost of the registrations at issue.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
2. Community law precludes actions for the recovery of
    charges levied in breach of Directive 69/335/EEC, as            In Case C-97/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    amended, from being dismissed on the ground that                of the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
    those charges were imposed as a result of an excusable          (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court) (Germany), for a
    error by the authorities of the Member State inasmuch           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    as they were levied over a long period without either           court between Verband deutscher Daihatsu-Händler eV
    those authorities or the persons liable to them having          and Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH Ð on the interpretation
    been aware that they were unlawful.                             of Article 6 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
                                                                    9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for
                                                                    the protection of the interests of members and others, are
                                                                    required by Member States of companies within the
                                                                    meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
                                                                    Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent
3. Community law, as it now stands, does not prevent a              throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
    Member State which has not properly transposed                  1968 (I), p. 41) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
    Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, from resisting                of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
    actions for the repayment of charges levied in breach           (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
    thereof by relying on a limitation period under                 Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; G. Cosmas,
    national law which runs from the date on which the              Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
    charges in question became payable, provided that               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December
    such a period is not less favourable for actions based          1997, in which it has ruled:
    on Community law than for actions based on national
    law and does not render virtually impossible or
    excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by
                                                                    1. Article 6 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
    Community law.
                                                                        9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which,
                                                                        for the protection of the interests of members and
                                                                        others, are required by Member States of companies
                                                                        within the meaning of the second paragraph of
                                                                        Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such
                                                                        safeguards equivalent throughout the Community,
4. Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, in                   must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a
    conjunction with Article 12 (1)(e) thereof gives rise to            Member State from restricting to members or creditors
    rights on which individuals may rely before national                of a company, the central works council or the
    courts.                                                             company's works council the right to apply for
                                                                        imposition of the penalty provided for by the law of
                                                                        that Member State in the event of failure by a
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.                                                 company to fulfil the obligations regarding disclosure
                                                                        of annual accounts laid down by the First Directive
                                                                        68/151/EEC.
                                                                    2. Since a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on
                                                                        an individual, and cannot therefore be relied upon as


title: Case T-520/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014  — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark gifflar — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctiveness — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar)
   (Case T-520/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark gifflar - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 282/39
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Pågen Trademark AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Leffler and P. Geroulakos, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2012 (Case R 46/2012-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark gifflar as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pågen Trademark AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-796/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/54

         Action brought on 11 November 2016 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle)
   (Case T-796/16)
   (2017/C 006/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle) — Application for registration No 33 266

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 in Case R 1248/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 42(2) and (3), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-152/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Megasol Energie v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/58

      Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Megasol Energie v Commission
      (Case T-152/16)
      (2016/C 211/72)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Megasol Energie AG (Deitingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Wegner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they impose antidumping and countervailing duties on solar modules exported into the EU by the applicant where the solar modules contain solar cells originally consigned in Taiwan from undertakings which are exempt from those measures;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they impose antidumping and countervailing duties on solar modules exported into the EU by the applicant where the solar modules contain solar cells originally consigned in Taiwan from various undertakings;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they concern the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  No investigation of exports from Switzerland
                  The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties may be extended only if the conditions laid down in Article 13 of the basic antidumping regulation (‘the Basic Regulation’) are satisfied. This meant, in particular, that an investigation of circumvention was required to be initiated and carried out effectively for the exports at issue.
                  Since the applicant exports solar modules from Switzerland into the EU but, contrary to Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation, no investigation was initiated for Switzerland, the applicant’s solar modules could not be subject to measures.

                  2.

                  Erroneous investigation of the facts relation to Taiwan
                  Contrary to the third sentence of Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, the Commission investigated erroneously the facts relating to a change in the pattern of trade between China and Taiwan. In particular, the ascertained values of trade statistics showed inconsistencies. It could not be inferred from the values that there had been transhipment through Taiwan. There is also no significant change in the pattern of trade in relation to Taiwan, since the increase of exports from Taiwan was only slight.

                  3.

                  No investigation of the facts in relation to Switzerland
                  No extended duties could be imposed on the solar modules exported by the applicant simply because no change at all has been found in the pattern of trade within the meaning of Article 13(3)(3) of the Basic Regulation as regards trade between China and Switzerland.

                  4.

                  No unjustified change in the pattern of trade
                  Even if there was a change in the pattern of trade relating to Taiwan and Switzerland, quod non, the Commission did not, however, establish that such a change was not justified.

                  5.

                  Error of discretion by the Commission in adopting the contested regulations, on the ground of the lack of an option of exemption for the applicant by means of an undertaking invoice
                  Whereas EU undertakings were, by means of an undertaking invoice, able to import goods exempt from the measures, this was not possible for the applicant. The wording of the undertaking is not tailored to undertakings from third countries which use cells from Malaysia or Taiwan.

                  6.

                  Error of discretion by the Commission in adopting the contested regulations, on the ground of infringement of EU fundamental rights and of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation (‘the EEC-Switzerland Agreement’)
                  Lastly, the applicant claims that its freedom to choose an occupation and its freedom to conduct a business (Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), its right to property (Article 17 of the Charter) and the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) have been infringed, since it has in particular been placed at a disadvantage compared to EU undertakings. The EEC-Switzerland Agreement prohibits discrimination against undertakings from the Contracting States.


title: Case T-307/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark NATURALLY ACTIVE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of inherent distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)
   (Case T-307/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NATURALLY ACTIVE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of inherent distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 30/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Earle Beauty (Ryde, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially M. Cover, and subsequently K. O'Rourke, Solicitors)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2009 (Case R 27/2009-2), concerning registration of the word sign NATURALLY ACTIVE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 May 2009 (Case R 27/2009-2) in so far as it refused registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign NATURALLY ACTIVE for wash bags, cosmetic bags and cases, beach bags, handbags, shoulder bags, draw string bags, purses, wallets, vanity cases, make-up bags, canvas bags, cases for mirrors in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of OHIM’s costs. OHIM is ordered to bear one third of its costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 September 1996 in Case C-241/94: French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 92 (1) of the Treaty - State intervention of a social character)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 354/7
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ), the          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris,                 Jean-Paul Keppenne and Ben Smulders ) — application for
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                         annulment of Commission decision SG(94 ) D/8907 of
H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas,                        27 June 1994 concerning aid to the company Kimberly
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for            Clark Sopalin — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 1996               Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
in which it ruled :                                                    Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), ( Presidents of
                                                                       Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
I. The hiring out of tangible property constitutes                     J. L. Murray, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G.
     exploitation ofsuch property which must be classified as          Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
     an 'economic activity ' within the meaning of Article 4           Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
     (2) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                26 September 1996 , in which it:
     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                 1 . dismisses the application;
     system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment,
     if it is done for the purpose of obtaining income
     therefrom on a continuing basis.                                  2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2 . In order to determine whether the hiring out of tangible           (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
     property such as a motor caravan is carried on with a
     view to obtaining income on a continuing basis, within
     the meaning of the second sentence ofArticle 4 (2) of the
     sixth Directive, it is for the national court to evaluate all
     the circumstances of the particular case.
3 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (c) of the sixth Directive is to be
     interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount for                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     turnover tax on transactions treated as supplies of                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
     services under Article 6 (2) (a) of the Directive must
     include expenses which are incurred during a period in                                 of 26 September 1996
     which the goods are at the taxable person 's disposal in a        in Case C-287/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     way that he can actually use them at any time for                 the 0stre Landsret ): A/S Richard Frederiksen & Co . v.
     non-business purposes and which relate to the goods                                      Skatteministeriet ( 1 )
     themselves or which the taxable person is entitled to             (Raising of capital — Capital duty — interest-free loan
     deduct for VAT purposes. The portion of the expenses              granted by a parent company to its subsidiary — Company
     to be included must be proportionate to the ratio                                              income tax)
     between the total duration ofactual use of the goods and
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/ 13 )
     the duration of actual use for non-business purposes.
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                                       (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   In Case C-287/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern Regional
                    of 26 September 1996
                                                                       Court ) ( Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the
in Case C-241/94 : French Republic v. Commission of the                proceedings pending before that court between A/S Richard
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Frederiksen       &   Co .     and   Skatteministeriet   on   the
(Concept ofState aid within the meaning ofArticle 92 (1) of            interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) ( b ) and Article 10 of Council
   the Treaty — State intervention of a social character)              Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
                           ( 96/C 354/ 12 )                            taxes on the raising of capital ( Official Journal, English
                                                                       Special Edition, 1969 ( II ), p. 412 ), the Court ( Sixth
                                                                       Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President of the
                (Language of the case: French)                         Chamber, G. F. Mancini and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                       Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl ,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
          published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it rules :
In Case C-241 /94 : French Republic ( Agents : Edwige                   1 . Article 4 (2) (b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) v.                   1 7 July 1 969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of


title: Case T-154/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Perform and Oasis projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission
      (Case T-154/14) (1)

      ((Arbitration clause - Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Perform and Oasis projects - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Counter-claim - Default interest))
      (2016/C 211/54)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

         Re:

      Applications, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the subsidies paid to the applicant in implementation of contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the balance of the unpaid subsidies under those contracts and, on the other, to order the applicant, by way of counterclaim, to reimburse the subsidies unduly paid under those contracts.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias;

                  2)

                  Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 650 625,37, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %;

                  3)

                  Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 8 January 2002 in Case C-507/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven): Denkavit Nederland BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserĳ, Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Powers of the Member States — Decision to slaughter and determination of the timing of slaughter of United Kingdom calves during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in March 1996)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/17
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
                                                                           humans and to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in
                                                                           the United Kingdom, the Member States were entitled, under
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990
                                                                           concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-
                                                                           Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
                          8 January 2002                                   the completion of the internal market, as amended by Council
                                                                           Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal
                                                                           health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports
in Case C-507/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                  into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Denkavit                   laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to
Nederland BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer                         Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive
 en Visserij, Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (1)                  90/425:
                                                                           —     to order the slaughter of young bovine animals originating from
(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalo-                            the United Kingdom present in their territory and
pathy — Powers of the Member States — Decision to
slaughter and determination of the timing of slaughter                     —     consequently, to determine when their slaughter took place.
of United Kingdom calves during the bovine spongiform
             encephalopathy crisis in March 1996)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000
                           (2002/C 84/26)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                7 February 2002
In Case C-507/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC              in Case C-5/00: Commission of the European Communi-
by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)                         ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Denkavit Nederland BV and Minister van                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Voedselvoorzieningsin-                 Directive 89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improve-
en verkoopbureau, on the power of the Member States to                     ments in the safety and health of workers at work —
order the slaughter of United Kingdom calves and determine                 Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) — Employer’s duty to keep
its timing during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis              documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety
of March 1996 and on the interpretation of Article 8 of                                             and health at work)
Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-
                                                                                (2002/C 84/27)
munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view
to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224,
p. 29), as amended by Council Directive 92/118/EEC of                                          (Language of the case: German)
17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public
health requirements governing trade in and imports into the                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Community of products not subject to the said requirements                                     in the European Court Reports)
laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A
(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to
Directive 90/425 (OJ 1993 L 62, p. 49), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,                  In Case C-5/00, Commission of the European Communities
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and                   (Agent: M. Bogensberger) v Federal Republic of Germany
M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar:             (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön): Application
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on                for a declaration that, by exempting, under Paragraph 6(1) of
8 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     the Gesetz über die Durchführung von Maßnahmen des
                                                                           Arbeitsschutzes zur Verbesserung der Sicherheit und des
                                                                           Gesundheitsschutzes der Beschäftigten bei der Arbeit (Arbeits-
The Community provisions applicable to the common agricultural             schutzgesetz) [Law on the implementation of protective
policy in the beef and veal sector are to be interpreted as meaning        measures to improve the safety and health of employees at
that, in response to information concerning a possible link between        work (Law on safety and health at work)] of 7 August 1996


title: Case T-59/15: Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Amitié v EACEA

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/42

         Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Amitié v EACEA
   (Case T-59/15) (1)

   (2017/C 078/59)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-62/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Eurallumina v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/44

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v Commission
   (Case T-62/06)
   (2006/C 86/83)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) [represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, M. Garcia, Solicitors]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Either:

                           —

                           Annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

                           —

                           order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

                           —

                           annul the entirety of the contested decision and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered;

               —

               Either:

                           —

                           Annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or

                           —

                           order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

                           —

                           annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered;

               —

               In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Euralluminia to the effect that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December 2006, or at least until 31 December 2003, any sums foregone and to be foregone by the Italian State not be recovered; and

               —

               order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 7 December 2005 addressed to the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian Republic relating to a series of Council Decisions authorising exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia. In the contested decision, the Commission found that the exemptions constituted State aid.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that it had the right to expect that the present exemption, proposed by the Commission and unanimously approved by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC (1) until the end of December 2006 is a legally valid Community act and that any act taken by the Italian State and the applicant to implement and rely on these measures would not lead to an unlawful result. According to the applicant, it had the right to expect that the monies foregone by the Italian State in accordance with the exemptions legally granted would not be recovered in any event. The Commission, by claiming that the application of the exemptions was a State aid recoverable from 3 February 2002 until 31 December 2003, has therefore allegedly violated the applicant's rights in respect of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principles of legal certainty, presumption of validity, ‘lex specialis’ and ‘effet utile’, as well as the principle of good administration.
   Furthermore it is submitted that in deciding that the applicant's legitimate expectation came to an end on 2 February 2002, the Commission failed to take the appropriate period over which any investments were to be made and amortised relating to the applicant's plant into account. The Commission has, therefore, allegedly failed to state the reasons underlying the contested decision.

      (1)  2001/224/EC: Council Decision of 12 March 2001 concerning reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ L 84, p. 23)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 June 1998 in Case C-321/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Wilhelm Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg - Der Landrat, intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses, Kiel (Environment - Access to information - Directive 90/313/EEC - Administrative measure for the protection of the environment - Preliminary investigation proceedings)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 258/11
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court,
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               Schleswig-Holstein) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                     the proceedings pending before that Court between
                       of 17 June 1998                               Wilhelm Mecklenburg and Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der
in Case C-68/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Landrat, intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen
the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v                     Interesses, Kiel Ð on the interpretation of Articles 2(a)
                  Ministero delle Finanze (1)                        and 3(2), third indent, of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
                                                                     7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
(National tax on audiovisual and photo-optical products              the environment (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 56) Ð the
Ð Internal taxation Ð Possible incompatibility with                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                       Community law)                                President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.
                        (98/C 258/19)                                Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La
                                                                     Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June
                                                                          1990 on the freedom of access to informationon the
In Case C-68/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                 environment is to be interpreted as covering a
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a                 statement of views given by a countryside protection
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 authority in development consent proceedings if that
Court between Grundig Italiana SpA and Ministero delle                    statement is capable of influencing the outcome of
Finanze Ð on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC                   those proceedings as regards interests pertaining to the
Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                       protection of the environment.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
                                                                     2. The term preliminary investigation proceedings' in the
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                          third indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive is to be
given a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          interpreted as including an administrative procedure
                                                                          such as that referred to in Paragraph 7(1)(2) of the
Article 95 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as                        Umweltinformationsgesetz, which merely prepares the
precluding a Member State from introducing and levying a                  way for an administrative measure, only if it
consumption tax in so far as the taxable amount and the                   immediately precedes a contentious or quasi-
procedure for collecting the tax are different for domestic               contentious procedure and arises from the need to
products and for products imported from other Member                      obtain proof or to investigate a matter prior to the
States.                                                                   opening of the actual procedure.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 17 June 1998                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-321/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   of 17 June 1998
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                in    Case   C-214/97: Commission of the European
Wilhelm Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der Landrat,                            Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)
intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses,
                            Kiel (1)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                     Directive 75/440/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
(Environment Ð Access to information Ð Directive 90/                                       prescribed period)
313/EEC Ð Administrative measure for the protection of
 the environment Ð Preliminary investigation proceedings)                                    (98/C 258/21)
                        (98/C 258/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-321/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-214/97: Commission of the European
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                   Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v


title: Case C-380/10: Action brought on 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/13

         Action brought on 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-380/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/16
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland, with regard to the province of Åland, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for implementing the Directive expired on 14 May 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2005 in Case T-352/02 Creative Technology Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community word mark PC WORKS — Earlier national figurative mark W WORK PRO — Refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/35

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 25 May 2005
   in Case T-352/02 Creative Technology Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community word mark PC WORKS - Earlier national figurative mark W WORK PRO - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 182/65)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-352/02: Creative Technology Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), represented by M. Edenborough, Barrister, J. Flintoft, S. Jones and P. Rawlinson, Solicitors, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Holst Filtenborg and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being José Vila Ortiz, residing in Valencia (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2002 (Case R 265/2001-4) relating to an opposition between Creative Technology Ltd and José Vila Ortiz — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-15/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Shower drain conduit) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered design representing a shower drain conduit — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Visible characteristic of the earlier design — Goods at issue — Articles 4 to 7, 19 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Shower drain conduit)
   (Case T-15/13) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered design representing a shower drain conduit - Earlier design - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Visible characteristic of the earlier design - Goods at issue - Articles 4 to 7, 19 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2015/C 213/51)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: H. Jonkhout, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (Losser, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Eijsvogels, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2004/2010-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between I-drain BVBA and Easy Sanitary Solutions BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2004/2010-3);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Group Nivelles and Easy Sanitary Solutions BV.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2003 in Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Annulment — Time limits — Manifest Inadmissibility)

text:
C 171/28                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                              INSTANCE                                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignat-
                                                                            aro-Nolin and O. Beynets) — application for suspension of the
                          of 11 April 2003                                  operation of the decision of the Commission of 30 October
                                                                            2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and
                                                                            Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video
in Case T-392/02 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council
                      of the European Union                                 Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/
                                                                            36.321 Omega — Nintendo) — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 27 March 2003, the operative
(Procedure for interim relief — Directive 70/524/EEC —                      part of which is as follows:
Withdrawal of authorisation for the placing on the market
of an additive in feedingstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 1756/
2002 — Application for suspension of operation — Admissi-                   1.    The application is dismissed.
bility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of
                               interests)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                          (2003/C 171/47)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-392/01 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Weesp (Netherlands) represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against the Council of the European Union (Agents:                                             of 28 April 2003
M. Balta and M. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for the
suspension of operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/                 in Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe against Office
2002 of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 70/                    for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards                                          and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive and amending
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265,
p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an                (Community trade mark — Annulment — Time limits —
order on 11 April 2003, the operative part of which is as                                        Manifest Inadmissibility)
follows:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/49)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            In Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, residing in Bilbao
                                                                            (Spain), against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                            proceedings being: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA,
                              INSTANCE                                      established in Madrid, — appeal against the decision of the
                                                                            Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                         of 27 March 2003                                   the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October
                                                                            2002 in Case R-918/2001-2 relating to the opposition pro-
in Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl v Commission of the                       ceedings between José Luis Zuazaga Meabe and Banco Bilbao
                     European Communities                                   Vizcaya Argentaria SA — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                            Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, and J. Pirrung
(Application for interim relief — Competition — Payment                     and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar; has made an order
of fines — Bank guarantee — Urgency — Exceptional                           on 28 April 2003 by which it:
           circumstances — Balancing of interests)
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                          (2003/C 171/48)
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
In Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl, having its registered office
in Florence (Italy), represented by L. D’Amario and B. Calzia,


title: Case T-516/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)
   (Case T-516/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 104/65)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1);

               2.

               Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-318/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/67

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission
   (Case T-318/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/82)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by H. Wollmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.