title: Case C-429/01: Action brought on 5 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against French Republic

text:
C 369/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.12.2001
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by G. zur Hausen, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                           H. van der Woude and V. Landes, avocats, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The mere fact of having designated a number of special
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      protection areas does not in itself constitute a complete
      and proper transposition of Article 4(1) and (2) of the
      directive since such designation is only intended to
      implement the general obligations enshrined in the                   —     Declare that, by failing to transpose completely Articles
      directive. On the other hand, no legally binding provision                 14(a) and (b), 15(1) and (2), 16(1) and 19(2), (3) and (4)
      applicable in the territory of one or other region provides                of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
      for the classification as special protection areas of the                  on the contained use of genetically modified micro-
      most appropriate areas in terms of number and surface                      organisms (1), and by failing to transpose the provisions
      area for the conservation of the bird species listed in                    of the directive for certain contained use by the Ministry
      Annex I and of the regularly occurring migratory species                   of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      not listed in Annex I, as regards their breeding, moulting                 obligations under that directive and Article 249 of the EC
      and wintering areas and staging posts along their                          Treaty; and
      migration routes.
—     The delimitation of the special protection areas by those            —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      regions cannot be relied upon as against third parties in
      the absence of their publication and in the absence of
      provisions of national law providing expressly that the
      publication of the order without accompanying maps is
      to have no effect on their binding nature vis-à-vis third
      parties.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     So far as the Flemish Region is concerned, the special
      protection areas do not have the protection and conser-
      vation status provided for by Community law in the field,
      since the only measures which are applicable are either
                                                                           The Commission takes the view that the implementing
      sparse and disjointed or, on the contrary, are of an
                                                                           measures communicated by the French authorities amount to
      extremely general nature having exactly the same value
                                                                           only incomplete transposition of certain provisions of the
      within as outwith the special protection areas.
                                                                           directive, namely:
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).                            —     Article 14(a), in so far as it concerns the use of genetically
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation               modified micro-organisms belonging to Groups I and II
    of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,              for teaching, research and development, and in so far as
    p. 7).                                                                       it concerns installations other than those subject to
                                                                                authorisation involving uses for industrial or non-com-
                                                                                mercial purposes;
                                                                           —     Article 14(b), in so far as it concerns installations subject
                                                                                to declaration and in so far as it concerns making
                                                                                available to other Member States concerned information
Action brought on 5 November 2001 by the Commission                              on safety measures and on the correct behaviour to adopt
  of the European Communities against French Republic                            in the case of an accident;
                          (Case C-429/01)
                                                                           —     Article 15(1), in that the measures adopted by the French
                                                                                authorities do not specify the list of information to be
                          (2001/C 369/17)                                        provided by the user;
                                                                           —     Article 15(2), in so far as it concerns the drawing up of a
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                     framework for the measures designed to alert any Member
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 November                       State liable to be affected by an accident;
 ---pagebreak--- 22.12.2001           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 369/11
—   Article 16(1), in so far as it concerns the drawing up of a        —    Article 19(4), in so far as it concerns public access to
    framework for consulting with other Member States and                   certain non-confidential data;
    informing the Commission as soon as possible of any
    accident;
                                                                       —    all the provisions of the directive in so far as they concern
—   Article 19(2), in so far as it concerns the duty of an                  confined use by the Ministry of Defense.
    operator to provide verifiable justification when seeking
    confidential treatment of certain information contained
    in its application for approval;                                   (1) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1.


title: Case T-422/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/45

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)
   (Case T-422/16)
   (2016/C 343/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Mama’ — Application No 14 169 304

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 95/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-193/08 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/26

         Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission
   (Case T-193/08 P)
   (2008/C 197/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered on 6 March 2008 by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-46/06;

               —

               uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, which dismissed her action for, first, annulment of her career development report for 2004 and, second, damages.
   In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas, alleging manifest errors of assessment (paragraphs 66, 98 and 113 of the contested judgment) and distortion of the clear sense of evidence (paragraph 68).


title: Case T-329/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — URS Nederland v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — URS Nederland v Commission
   (Case T-329/02) (1)

   (2006/C 224/112)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


title: Case T-176/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Carbunión v Council

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/26

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Carbunión v Council
   (Case T-176/11)
   2011/C 152/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Desai, Solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               declare the action for annulment founded and accordingly annul Article 3(1) indents (a) (b) and (f); and Article 3(3) of the Council Decision of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (2010/787/EU) (1); and

               —

               condemn the Council to bear the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the appreciation of the relevant acts since the defendant based the contested decision on the following findings:

                           —

                           the contribution of coal in the EU energy supply is small;

                           —

                           the closure of the uncompetitive mines and elimination of the EU coal production will encourage renewable energy sources;

                           —

                           the coal production in the EU and in Spain in particular are by no means expected to become competitive by 2018.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging lack of statement of reasons since the Council failed to:

                           —

                           address the abundant evidence and conclusions that were presented to it during the preparatory procedure by other institutions and stakeholders demonstrating the importance of the EU coal industry for the security of supply in the EU;

                           —

                           state reasons for (i) departing from the State aid framework and policy instituted with the 2002 Coal Regulation (2), which was based on security of supply concerns, and (ii) instead adopting the contested decision based solely on competitiveness’ considerations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations since the contested decision:

                           —

                           constitutes an abrupt and unexpected change of the position of the EU towards the indigenous coal sector in the EU and in Spain in particular;

                           —

                           violates the principle of legitimate expectations as it does not provide for a transitional period to allow the applicant to adapt to this significant change of policy.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality as the contested decision imposes unjustified and excessive restrictions to the operation of the indigenous coal mines in Spain, which do not correspond to the Council’s objectives. More precisely, in the applicant’s view, the measures adopted by the contested decision do not address the environmental concerns put forward by the Council, since the EU electricity plants will continue to ‘burn’ imported coal. In fact the contested decision imposes overly burdensome obligations on the applicant which are totally unrelated to the objective of environmental protection. Furthermore, the applicant submits that competition concerns arising from the subsidisation of the indigenous coal are also exaggerated in the contested decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. In this regard the applicant submits that the measures adopted in the contested decision, given their adverse effects for the coal mining sector in the EU, do not correspond to the strategic goals and the policy objectives that the EU is meant to pursue under Article 194 TFEU. The contested decision endangers the proper functioning of the energy market in the EU and the security of energy supply in the EU and in Spain in particular. Therefore, the Council misused its powers in adopting the contested decision which aims at eliminating one of the most important indigenous raw materials for securing energy supply in the EU.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non discrimination. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision discriminates against indigenous coal producers (i) vis-à-vis importers of coal in the EU and (ii) vis-à-vis other forms of energy respectively.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is founded on the wrong legal basis. The applicant submits that the contested decision is adopted on the basis of Article 107(3)(e) TFEU alone when it should have also been adopted on the basis of Article 109 TFEU and follow the corresponding procedure.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry, OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1


title: Case T-235/11: Judgment of the General Court of of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted by the Fund to five projects concerning the implementation of certain lines of the high-speed railway network in Spain — Time-limit for the adoption of a decision — Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 — Additional deliveries — Additional works or services — Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstance’ — Article 20(2)(e) and (f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/14

         Judgment of the General Court of of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-235/11) (1)

   (Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted by the Fund to five projects concerning the implementation of certain lines of the high-speed railway network in Spain - Time-limit for the adoption of a decision - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 - Additional deliveries - Additional works or services - Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstance’ - Article 20(2)(e) and (f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)
   2013/C 79/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and N. Díaz Abad initially, then by N. Díaz Abad and A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Adserá Ribera and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 1023 final of 18 February 2011 reducing assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project phases entitled ‘Supply and assembly of track materials for the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Madrid-Lleida section’ (CCI 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001), ‘Madrid-Barcelona High-Speed Rail line. Lleida-Martorell section (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001), ‘Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Approaches to Zaragoza’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003), ‘Madrid- Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Lleida-Martorell section. X-A sub-section (Olérdola — Avinyonet del Penedés)’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007), ‘New High-Speed rail access to Levante. La Gineta-Albacete sub-section (Platform)’ (CCI 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014) and, in the alternative, application for partial annulment of the same decision so far as concerns the corrections made by the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case T-146/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Price-fixing agreements, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Principle of economic continuity — Principle of personal liability — Fines — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader — Ceiling of 10 % — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission
   (Case T-146/09 RENV) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Price-fixing agreements, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Principle of economic continuity - Principle of personal liability - Fines - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Ceiling of 10 % - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2016/C 314/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, (Corsico, Italy) and Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Mayfield Heights, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Amory, F. Marchini Camia and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, S. Noë and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as that decision concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment or a substantial reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on them in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls subparagraph (e) of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses) in so far as a 30 % increase was applied to the amount of the fine to be paid jointly and severally by Parker-Hannifin Corp., on the basis of the aggravating circumstance of the role of leader played by ITR SpA from 11 June 1999 to 30 September 2001 and in so far as the European Commission did not calculate, as regards the part of the fine for which Parker ITR was held exclusively liable with regard to the period prior to 1 January 2002, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover provided for by Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] solely on the basis of the turnover of Parker ITR Srl;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR, at EUR 19 945 728, for EUR 6 400 000 of which Parker-Hannifin is jointly and severally liable;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Parker Hannifin Manufacturing, Parker-Hannifin and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-160/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
16.6.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/29
      harmonised at Community level may be subject to                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
      provisions justified in the general interest such as rules
      concerning organisation of the profession, qualification            —     set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
      and professional conduct, the Commission considers that                   European Communities of 30 January 2001;
      the French legislation lays down disproportionate and
      excessively restrictive conditions for the exercise in France       —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs, with
      of the profession in question by intellectual property                    all the legal consequences which that entails.
      advisers lawfully established in another Member State and
      supplying services in France on an isolated occasion.
      Other measures — less restrictive than mandatory entry              Pleas in law and main arguments
      on a register preceded by an examination — could be
      envisaged, for example:                                             —     Error of law: given the structure of the appellant com-
                                                                                pany’s production chain, which is unique in the south-
      1.    a requirement to practice under the home-country                    west, the Court of First Instance should have specifically
            title;                                                              examined whether, as at the date of its adoption, the
                                                                                contested regulation particularly affected the appellant.
      2.    a requirement that the person practising the pro-
            fession produces his qualification;                           —     Distortion of the appellant’s claims.
                                                                          —     Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons for the ruling
      3.    a declaration system (such as that provided for in                  on the plea alleging disregard of the right to seek effective
            Article 22 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the                   relief by bringing proceedings: the contested order does
            mutual recognition of architects’ qualifications) (2).              not deal with the appellant’s argument that the Com-
                                                                                mission’s interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation
—     Infringement of Article 49 EC by imposing residence or                    No 2081/92 (1), to the effect that that article restricts the
      a place of business in France as a condition for the supply               right to object to the procedure at Member State level,
      of services there on an isolated occasion.                                disregards the right to seek effective relief by bringing
                                                                                proceedings.
                                                                          —     Misinterpretation of Article 7 of Regulation No 2081/92:
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                  disregard by the Community legal order of the guaranteed
(2) Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of                   right to seek effective relief by bringing proceedings,
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications          which constitutes a general legal principle: the effect of a
    in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective             failure to act on the part of a Member State must be such
    exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide               as to permit an undertaking which otherwise fulfils the
    services (OJ No L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15).
                                                                                admissibility requirements laid down by Article 7(4) to
                                                                                raise an objection with the Commission.
                                                                          (1) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
                                                                              geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
                                                                              products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste
against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Con-
queste and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
                                                                          Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the
                         (Case C-151/01 P)                                    case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                          (2001/C 173/49)                                                           (Case C-160/01)
An appeal against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the                                          (2001/C 173/50)
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Conqueste                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and the Commission of the European Communities was                        European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              (Social Court, Leipzig) of 30 March 2001, received at the Court
ties on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste, represented by             Registry on 12 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and F. Thiriez, avocats, with an                 of Karen Mau against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal
address for service in Paris.                                             Labour Office) on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.6.2001
1.   Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide             Question 1
     for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
     Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     to the protection of employees in the event of the                Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
                                                                       of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
     insolvency of their employer?
                                                                       to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
                                                                       which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
2.   Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited           assembly of a chamber of workers?
     the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
     with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?
3.   Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages          Question 2
     to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
     of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
                                                                       Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
4.   Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken         1980 on the development of the Association directly appli-
     as the basis for determining the reference period is that         cable Community law?
     of the request for the opening of proceedings?
5.   Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period pro-
     vided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
     compatible with Article 141 EC?
6.   In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
     the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
     the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.                                                                  Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-174/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/52)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-               ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the              Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
election proceedings brought by the electoral group                    as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne
                   GewerkschafterInnen/UG’
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should
                         (Case C-171/01)
                                                                       —     Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
                         (2001/C 173/51)                                     for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
                                                                             equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
                                                                             with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which                    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a                   obligations under that directive;
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions:              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT of 8 October 1996 in Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke - Comércio e Indústria de Papel, Ld.a, v. Commission of the European Communities (Social policy - European Social Fund - Decision ordering partial reimbursement of assistance for a vocational training programme - Interim measures - Request for suspension of operation - Urgency - No urgency)

text:
23 . 11 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/27
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               by Miguel Ferrão Castelo Branco, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
                        of 4 October 1996                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Francois Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe, against Commission of the
in Case T-5 /96 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and               European Communities ( Agents : Maria Teresa Figueira and
Sven Ake Henrikson v. Commission of the European                        Knut Simonsson ) — application for suspension of the
                          Communities (')
                                                                        operation of the Commission Decision of 12 December
(Common agricultural policy — Sugar beet — Regulation                   1995 ordering reimbursement of Esc 4 267 218 paid as
(EC) No 1 734/95 — Specific agricultural conversion rate —              assistance from the European Social Fund for a vocational
No conversion rate for Sweden — Action for annulment —                  training programme — the President of the Court of First
                          Inadmissibility)                              Instance has made an order on 8 October 1996 , the
                           ( 96/C 354/54 )                              operative part of which is as follows :
                  (Language of the case: English)                       1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
In Case T-5/96 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening, having
its registered office in Malmö ( Sweden ), and Sven Ake                 2.   The costs are reserved.
Henrikson, residing in Lund ( Sweden ), represented by
Otfried        Lieberknecht and Wolfgang Kirchhoff,
Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, and Michael Schütte,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and James
Macdonald Flett ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission decision contained in the letter of 27 October               Action brought on 5 June 1996 by Assicurazioni Generali
 1995 ( reference D(95 ) VI/ 1242/95 ) refusing to fix for              SpA and Unicredito SpA against Commission of the
Sweden the specific agricultural conversion rate for                                        European Communities
minimum sugar beet prices for the period from 1 January                                         ( Case T-87/96 )
 1995 to 30 June 1995 — the Court of First Instance ( First
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/56 )
Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
R. M. Moura Ramos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 4 October 1996 , the operative part of which is
as follows :
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall also            Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1996 by
      bear, jointly and severally, those incurred by the                Assicurazioni Generali SpA, of Trieste ( Italy ), and
      Commission .                                                      Unicredito SpA, of Treviso ( Italy ), represented by Aurelio
                                                                        Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and ClaudioTesauro, of the
 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .                                       Naples Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
     ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                — annul the Commission decision of 25 March 1996 in
                        of 8 October 1996                                    Case No IV/M.711 Generali/Unicredito;
 in Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de
 Papel , Ld .a, v. Commission of the European                           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                             Communities
 (Socialpolicy — European Social Fund — Decision ordering                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
partial reimbursement ofassistance for a vocational training
 programme — Interim measures — Request for suspension
           of operation — Urgency — No urgency)                          The applicants, which are insurance companies, gave notice,
                            ( 96/C 354/55 )                              under Council Regulation No 4064/89 , of the creation of a
                                                                         joint venture , called Casse e Generali Vita SpA ( CG Vita ),
                                                                         designed to operate in the life assurance market, on the
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      assumption that it amounted to a concentration; they now
                                                                         contest the Commission 's refusal to treat the operation
 In Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de                     notified to it as falling within the scope of the
 Papel , Ld . a, whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented       abovementioned regulation .


C 144/32              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-282/01 (1)                register of Case C-288/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                     the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Finanzgericht): Ulf Thomsen v
                       (2002/C 144/66)                               Finanzamt Flensburg.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 21 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-282/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-350/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/69)
                                                                     By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-287/01 (1)                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-350/01: Commission of the European
                       (2002/C 144/67)                               Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 11 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-287/01: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-409/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/70)
       Removal from the register of Case C-288/01 (1)                By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                       (2002/C 144/68)                               from the register of Case C-409/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di L’Aquila): Rolando
                                                                     Salusest v Giovanni Petrucci.
By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case T-414/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — NHL Enterprises v OHIM — Glory & Pompea (LA KINGS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LA KINGS — Earlier national figurative mark KING — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — NHL Enterprises v OHIM — Glory & Pompea (LA KINGS)
   (Case T-414/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LA KINGS - Earlier national figurative mark KING - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 153/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NHL Enterprises BV (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented initially by G. Llewelyn, Solicitor, and V. Barresi, lawyer, and subsequently by M. Collins, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Glory & Pompea, SA (Mataró, Spain)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Glory & Pompea, SA and NHL Enterprises BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by NHL Enterprises BV.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case T-194/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — SNIA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Acquisition of a company liable for the infringement — Rights of the defence — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — SNIA v Commission
   (Case T-194/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Acquisition of a company liable for the infringement - Rights of the defence - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2011/C 226/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: SNIA SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Santa Maria, B. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SNIA SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-391/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Evonik Degussa and AlzChem v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Market in calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Proportionality — Duration of the infringement — Joint and several liability for payment of a fine — 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/14

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Evonik Degussa and AlzChem v Commission
      (Case T-391/09) (1)

      (Competition - Cartels - Market in calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Duration of the infringement - Joint and several liability for payment of a fine - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)
      (2014/C 71/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) and AlzChem AG, formerly AlzChem Trostberg GmbH, formerly AlzChem Hart GmbH (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, O. Andresen and I. Bodenstein, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. von Lingen and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) in so far as it relates to the applicants or, in the alternative, an application for amendment of that decision seeking, first, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants and, second, that that fine be imposed in its entirety on SKW Stahl Technik GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally with the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 2(g) and (h) of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) in so far as it relates to Evonik Degussa GmbH and AlzChem AG subject to the qualification that that annulment does not have a bearing on the discharging effect of any payment made by one or other of those two companies in connection with the fine imposed jointly and severally in respect of the finding of infringement in Article 1(f) of that decision against Stahl Technik GmbH & Co. KG and on the relief afforded to Stahl Technik GmbH & Co. KG and on the fine which was imposed on it under Article 2(g) of that decision;

                  2.

                  In respect of the infringement findings in Article 1(f) of Decision C(2009) 5791 final against Evonik Degussa and AlzChem, the following fines shall be imposed:

                              —

                              on Evonik Degussa and AlzChem jointly and severally: EUR 2.49 million, subject to the qualification that Evonik Degussa et AlzChem will be deemed to have satisfied the payment of that fine up to the amount paid by SKW Stahl Technik in respect of the fine which was imposed on it under Article 2(g) of that decision;

                              —

                              on Evonik Degussa, exclusively liable for payment of that fine, EUR 1.24 million;

                  3.

                  The action is dismissed as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Evonik Degussa and AlzChem shall bear two-thirds of their own costs and two-thirds of those of the European Commission. The Commission shall bear one-third of its own costs and one-third of those of Evonik Degussa and AlzChem.

         (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-749/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d’escompte v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Programme for purchasing securities — Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral — Private creditors — Commercial banks — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d’escompte v ECB
   (Case T-749/15) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Programme for purchasing securities - Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral - Private creditors - Commercial banks - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 070/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS (Paris, France) and Banque d’escompte (Paris) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: O. Heinz, G. Varhelyi and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the applicants following, in particular, the adoption of ECB Decision 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (ECB/2012/3) (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19) and also of other ECB measures linked to the restructuring of the Greek public debt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS and Banque d’escompte to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


C 331/34             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
During an audit of the subsidies granted to the applicant, the          Pleas in law and main arguments
Eurostat internal audit unit found that subsidies had been paid
but not used and some expenditure that was not eligible. The            In support of his action, the applicant invokes an infringement
Commission subsequently decided to take steps to recover the            of the terms of the vacancy notice, an error in the assessment
amount in question.                                                     of those terms, and infringement of the principle of the
                                                                        protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant further
The applicant claims that the audit carried out by the                  pleads infringement of the principle of equal treatment as
Commission does not correctly evaluate certain information              between internal candidates and candidates external to the
and data and does not apply the principles in force concerning          institution inasmuch as the internal candidates had the benefit
internal Commission audits. The applicant also alleges that the         of being known by the appointing authority.
audit was one-sided and carried out by a service dependent on
one of the Contracting Parties. The applicant finally submits
that not all of the documents available were taken into
consideration in the audit.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-53/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Jean-Louis Cou-
gnon against the Court of Justice of the European Com-
                            munities                                    By order of 11 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-240/01)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-53/01, Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities.
                       (2001/C 331/56)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Jean-                          Removal from the register of Case T-98/01 (1)
Louis Cougnon, residing in Capellen, Luxembourg, represented
by Joëlle Choucron, avocat, with an address for service in                                      (2001/C 331/58)
Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the procedure for filling the post of Director of            By order of 30 July 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
     Personnel and Finances — career bracket A 2 — referred             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     to in Vacancy Notice CJ 78/00 received and published on            has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-98/01,
     17 October 2000,                                                   Filippos Pierros v Commission of the European Communities.
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.


20150731058617092015/C 270/493442015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150701394021Case T-344/15: Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3910120150701EN0049391402Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission
   (Case T-344/15)2015/C 270/49Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the court to:

            —

            annul the decision of the European Commission GESTDEM 2014/6046 of 21 April 2015 concerning the confirmatory application for access pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

            —

            order the Commission 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, alleging infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (
                  1
               ), which provides that a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement.

            2.

            Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to give reasons concerning the non-application of the exception provided at the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

            3.

            Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging infringement of the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant contends that the Commission could have refused access to the documents sent by the French authorities in accordance with the procedure provided in Directive 98/34/EC (
                  2
               ), in so far as that procedure would constitute an investigation within the meaning of the article cited above.

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
   (
         2
      )	Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).


title: Case T-679/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Teva UK a.o. v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/54

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Teva UK a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-679/14)
   2014/C 409/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Teva UK Ltd (West Yorkshire, United Kingdom), Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: D. Tayar and A. Richard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               accept the present application and declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul Article 3 of Decision COMP/AT.39612 ‘Perindopril (Servier)’ of 9 July 2014 insofar as it finds that Teva UK limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited infringed Article 101 of the Treaty;

               —

               cancel the fine imposed Teva UK limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in Article 7 of Decision COMP/AT.39612 ‘Perindopril (Servier)’ of 9 July 2014;

               —

               if the Court does not annul Article 3 of the Decision or cancel the fine in its entirety, substantially reduce it; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually in characterising the agreement entered into by Teva and Servier in 13 June 2006 (the ‘Agreement’) as a restriction by object. As a legal matter, the Commission wrongly characterised as by object restrictions all agreements that are capable of restricting competition instead of only agreements that will unambiguously, by their very nature, reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition. As a factual matter, the circumstances that prevailed when the Agreement was negotiated, in particular the genuine intellectual property risks that Teva faced, demonstrate that Teva entered into the Agreement to secure a timely market entry and not to receive an inducement in exchange for a delayed entry.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually in characterising the Agreement as a restriction by effect, as the Decision does not produce evidence to the requisite standard of a restriction of competition in comparison to the relevant counterfactual.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that even if the Court finds that the Agreement falls within the ambit of Article 101(1) TFEU, the Court should conclude that the Commission has not adequately examined the arguments and the evidence provided by the applicants to support the existence of efficiencies and the fulfilment by the Agreement of all the conditions of Article 101(3) TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on the applicants should be annulled or, at least, significantly reduced. First, the decision breached the principles of legal certainty, non-retroactivity, and legitimate expectations by imposing a substantial fine on Teva. Second, the Commission erred in departing from its guidelines on the methodology of setting fines and violated the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectation, proportionality, and equal treatment by imposing an excessive fine on Teva.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed significant procedural errors.


C 264/40              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
       Removal from the register of Case T-288/99 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-111/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/70)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/72)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                By order of 16 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
T-288/99: Evers V.O.F. v Commission of the European Com-                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-111/03:
                                                                         Michel Nolin v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-318/99 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/71)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-249/03 R
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/73)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                     (Language of the case: French)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-318/99: Avia Nederland Coöperatie U.A. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 5 August 2003 the President of the Court of First
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.


title: Case T-183/01: Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
C 317/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.11.2001
In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act       Pleas in law and main arguments
and annulment.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:                          on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
                                                                          the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
—     infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC                staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
      Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on        Technological Development programmes.
      ECSC undertakings of charges which, in the case of
      Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
      financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
      have to meet them in the absence of any commercial                  In support of her claims the applicant alleges:
      production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the
      ECSC Treaty;                                                        —     The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the
                                                                                principle of openness;
—     infringement of essential procedural requirements by
      failure to state reasons;                                           —     The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
                                                                                rules governing the composition of a selection board;
—     lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
      letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains
      was formally taken by the Commission and that its                   —     The infringement of the principles of sound adminis-
      signatory was authorised to sign it;                                      tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
                                                                                professional and administrative situation of the members
                                                                                of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
—     breach of the principle of sound administration.                          candidates.
(1) Sacilor Lorminesv Commission (not yet published in the Official
    Journal).
                                                                          Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                Market
Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-183/01)
                          (Case T-182/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/56)
                          (2001/C 317/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,                 European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and                  represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in                  London (UK).
Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
—     annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/                        Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
      R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not                    application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
      sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;               goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
                                                                                Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to
—     order the defendent to pay the costs.                                     registration for the goods in Class 5;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/29
—     in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Board of             Action brought on 4 August 2001 by Dominique Ramae-
      Appeal and the Opposition Division in so far as they                kers against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concern the application for registration of the applicant’s                                         ties
      mark for the goods in Class 5; and order that the
      application in respect of the amended specification for
      the goods in Class 5 be referred back to the Opposition                                       (Case T-185/01)
      Division for further consideration;
                                                                                (2001/C 317/57)
—     order that the applicant’s costs of defending the original
      opposition and of prosecuting the appeal before the
      Board of Appeal and of prosecuting this appeal before                                   (Language of the case: French)
      the Court of First Instance be paid to the applicant.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           European Communities on 4 August 2001 by Dominique
                                                                          Ramaekers, resident in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represent-
                                                                          ed by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an
Applicant for the Com-         Alza Corporation, Mountain                 address for service in Luxembourg.
munity trade mark:             View, California, U.S.A.
The Community trade            The word mark ‘E-TRANS’ for
mark concerned:                certain goods in Classes 5, 10             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               and 42 (e.g. pharmaceutical and
                               veterinary preparations and sub-
                               stances)         —        application      —     annul the decision of the selection board for the Research
                               No. 120089                                       selection COM/R/A/01/1999 to award her a mark that
                                                                                was not sufficient to allow her to be included on the
Proprietor of the right to     Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germany                   reserve list;
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                  —     in so far as necessary, annul the subsequent decision of
proceedings:                                                                    the Selection Committee and of the AECE establishing
                                                                                the reserve list for the Research selection process
Trade mark or sign             The      German        trade    mark             COM/R/A/01/1999;
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘ESTRANS’ for certain goods in
sition in the opposition       Class 5
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Partial accept of the opposition,
sition Division:               insofar as it relates to pharmaceut-
                               ical and veterinary preparations
                               and substances (Class 5)                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                   The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
                                                                          on the reserve list of successful candidates in the context of
Grounds of claim:              —     The goods covered by the             the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
                                     two marks are different;             staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
                                                                          Technological Development programmes.
                               —     there is no likelihood of con-
                                     fusion; and
                               —     Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
                                                                          The pleas and main arguments are those put forward in Case
                                     lation 40/94 (1) is not appli-
                                                                          T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (1).
                                     cable.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           (1) Not yet published in the OJEC.
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-78/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2010 — Parliament v Collée (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2004 Promotion round — Procedure for the allocation of merit points — Distortion of the evidence — Statement of reasons — Value of the opinion of the Reports Committee — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2010 — Parliament v Collée
   (Case T-78/09) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2004 Promotion round - Procedure for the allocation of merit points - Distortion of the evidence - Statement of reasons - Value of the opinion of the Reports Committee - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2010/C 113/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: initially C. Burgos and A. Lukošiūtė, and subsequently R. Ignătescu, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Laurent Collée (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 11 December 2008 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-148/06 Collée v Parliament, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting-aside of that judgment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Collée in connection with the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 102, of 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-554/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic (Appeal — Competition — Article 86(3) EC — Maintenance of preferential rights granted by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits — Infringement — Decision — Incompatibility with EU law — Subsequent decision — Establishment of specific measures — Solution to the anti-competitive effects of the infringement — Action for annulment)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-554/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Article 86(3) EC - Maintenance of preferential rights granted by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits - Infringement - Decision - Incompatibility with EU law - Subsequent decision - Establishment of specific measures - Solution to the anti-competitive effects of the infringement - Action for annulment))
   2014/C 315/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: P. Anestis, dikigoros), Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, M.-T. Marinos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in DEI v Commission, T-421/09, EU:T:2012:450;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-549/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted to fish farmers and fishermen — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission — Non-compliance — Absolute impossibility of compliance)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-549/09) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted to fish farmers and fishermen - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market - Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission - Non-compliance - Absolute impossibility of compliance)
   2011/C 362/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and K. Walkerová, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005, L 74, p. 49) — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to comply, within the prescribed time-limits, with Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen, by recovering from the recipients of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 4 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-70/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 February 2015 — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 February 2015 — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino
   (Case C-70/15)
   (2015/C 171/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Emmanuel Lebek

      Respondent: Janusz Domino

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the possibility of commencing proceedings to challenge a judgment laid down therein covers both the situation in which such a challenge can be brought within the time-limit laid down in national law and the situation in which that time-limit has already passed but it is possible to submit an application for relief from the effects of its passing and then — following the grant of such relief — actually to commence such proceedings?

               2.

               Must Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (2) be interpreted as excluding the application of provisions of national law concerning the possibility of relief from the effects of the expiry of the time for appeal or as meaning that the defendant has the choice of availing himself of either the application for relief provided for in that provision or the relevant set of provisions under national law?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


title: Case C-269/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-269/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)
   2013/C 344/08
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 06.08.2011.