title: Case T-229/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Edward Kelly against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/14                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Edward Kelly against                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-229/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                            (2003/C 239/24)                                          hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Peadar Elaine II;
                                                                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Edward Kelly,
Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                03 (1).
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Regina Ponti;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.                                                                  Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Hugh McBride against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (Case T-231/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/26)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Hugh McBride,
                                                                              Downings, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A.
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Peter McBride against                       Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-230/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/25)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                      (Language of the case: English)                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application in respect of the MFV Heather Jane
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           II;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Peter McBride,
Downings, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                                 ings.


title: Case F-54/12: Action brought on 15 May 2012 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/28

         Action brought on 15 May 2012 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-54/12)
   2012/C 194/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Condinanzi, D. Bono and C.A. Chiorino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST/117/11 not to admit the applicant to the second stage of that competition on the ground that he did not meet the admission requirements laid down in the competition notice.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the EPSO selection board refusing the applicant admission to the second stage of open competition EPSO/AST/117/11 — Assistants in the secretarial field (AST 1) on the ground of the alleged failure to meet the admission requirements laid down in section III of Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/117/11 and, in particular, because he does not have a level of post-secondary education in the secretarial field attested by a diploma or, alternatively, a level of secondary education attested by a diploma giving access to post-secondary education followed by professional experience in the secretarial field of at least three years, the tasks in which are directly linked to the secretarial function as described in Title 1 of the competition notice;

               —

               Annul all other subsequent acts and, if necessary, all other measures which the selection board will adopt in connection with the exclusion of the applicant from the competition in question;

               —

               In the alternative, in the event that it may not be possible for the applicant to take part in the second stage of the competition, order the defendant to pay the applicant the provisional sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 10 000 as compensation for material and non-material loss and in respect of harm to his career, together with late-payment interest at the legal rate with effect from the lodging of the action.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-238/17: Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/39

         Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER)
   (Case T-238/17)
   (2017/C 195/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gugler France (Besançon, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘GUGLER’ — EU trade mark No 3 324 902

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2017 in Case R 1008/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it regards the cancellation of the EU trade mark registration No 3 324 902 and the obligation to bear the cancellation applicant’s costs of EUR 550;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs in relation to the present proceedings.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

               Violation of the principle of sound administration;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(4) and 54(2) Regulation No 207/2009.


28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 94/17
      Removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-267/96 (1)
                         (98/C 94/41)                                                       (98/C 94/44)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (Reference for          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):             removal from the register of Case C-267/96: Republic of
Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-             France, supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v.
wesen v. Bauer Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG.                     European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-146/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-58/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/42)
                                                                                (98/C 94/45)
By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-146/97: Commission             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                  removal from the register of Case C-58/97: Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-100/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/43)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-68/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/46)
By order of 11 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-100/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                      By order of 20 January 1998, the President of the Court
Luxembourg.                                                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-68/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.


title: Case C-170/14 P: Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2014 in Case T-380/12, Demon International v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/11

         Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2014 in Case T-380/12, Demon International v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo
   (Case C-170/14 P)
   (2014/C 462/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (represented by: B. Osti, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Demon International, LC, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 6 November 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible.


title: Joined Cases C-614/12 and C-10/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — Absence — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13)
   (Joined Cases C-614/12 and C-10/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - Absence - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 112/19
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring courts

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13)

      Defendants: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection of workers in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body who has been dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation governing the terms and conditions of civil servants.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 6 December 2012, and by the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 21 September 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-241/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National of a Member State of the European Union — Frontier workers — Income tax — Allocation of fiscal sovereignty — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Nationality)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach
   (Case C-241/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - National of a Member State of the European Union - Frontier workers - Income tax - Allocation of fiscal sovereignty - Connecting factor for tax purposes - Nationality))
   (2016/C 016/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Roman Bukovansky

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lörrach

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment, set out in Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and in Article 9 of Annex I to that agreement, must be interpreted as not precluding a bilateral agreement on double taxation, such as the Agreement of 11 August 1971 between the Swiss Confederation and the Federal Republic of Germany, as amended by the revising Protocol of 12 March 2002, under which the power to tax the employment income of a German taxpayer who does not have Swiss nationality, although he has transferred his residence from Germany to Switzerland, whilst retaining his place of employment in the first of those States, is vested in the State in which that income originates, namely the Federal Republic of Germany, whereas the power to tax the employment income of a Swiss national who is in an analogous situation is vested in the new State of residence, in this case the Swiss Confederation.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-67/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark InvestHedge — Earlier Community figurative mark HEDGE INVEST — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/48

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)
   (Case T-67/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark InvestHedge - Earlier Community figurative mark HEDGE INVEST - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/88
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Reed, Barrister, and G. Crofton Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hedge Invest SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2007 (Case R 148/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hedge Invest SpA and Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case F-64/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2015 — Campanella v Commission

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2015 — Campanella v Commission
   (Case F-64/14) (1)

   (2015/C 262/61)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014, p. 31.


title: Case T-167/13: Action brought on 18 March 2013 — Comune di Milano v Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/29

         Action brought on 18 March 2013 — Comune di Milano v Commission
   (Case T-167/13)
   2013/C 129/54
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Comune di Milano (Italy) (represented by: S. Grassani and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2012) 9448 of 19 December 2012 concerning the capital injections made by SEA S.p.A. to SEA Handling S.p.A.;

               —

               in the alternative, having investigated the existence of specific exceptional circumstances which gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicant that the capital injections would not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) [TFEU], annul Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Decision which oblige Italy to recover the aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               By the first plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Comune di Milano claims that the Decision is flawed in so far as the Commission found the measures at issue to be attributable to the Comune (and accordingly to the State). According to the Comune, the Commission has not provided any evidence of this, with the result that the measures at issue cannot be categorised as State aid.

               2.

               By the second plea in law, also alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Comune di Milano claims that the Decision is incorrect in so far as the Commission found that, in the circumstances, the ‘private market-economy investor’ test had not been satisfied. On the contrary, that test was fully satisfied, and the beneficiary of the measures did not derive any advantage from those measures, which means that the measures at issue cannot be categorised as State aid.

               3.

               By the third plea in law, the Comune di Milano alleges breach and misapplication of the Guidelines for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and of the Guidelines for the airport sector and, consequently, that the conclusions reached by the Commission concerning the alleged incompatibility of the measures at issue are unlawful.

               4.

               By the fourth plea in law, divided into two limbs, the Comune alleges, with reference to the Commission’s conduct during the investigation procedure, breach of (i) the principle of sound administration, the right to be heard and the rights of the defence and (ii) the principle of legitimate expectations — and claims that, in consequence, the recovery order is unlawful.


title: Case C-306/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Natura Selection, SL (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark natura selection — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Natura Selection, SL
   (Case C-306/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark natura selection - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion)
   2012/C 258/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (represented by: H. Pannen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent), Natura Selection, SL

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 (Case R 1787/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and XXXLutz Marken GmbH — Likelihood of confusion between the figurative signs ‘natura selection’ and ‘Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil’ — Erroneous assessment of the similarity of those signs — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders XXXLutz Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-381/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Manuel Mesa Bertrán and Cristina Farrán Morenilla v Novacaixagalicia

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Manuel Mesa Bertrán and Cristina Farrán Morenilla v Novacaixagalicia
   (Case C-381/11)
   2011/C 290/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Manuel Mesa Bertrán and Cristina Farrán Morenilla

      Defendant: Novacaixagalicia

      Questions referred

               1.

               If a credit institution offers a client with whom it has previously signed a mortgage loan contract an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on that loan, must this be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point [(4)] of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive [Directive 2004/39/EC] (1)?

               2.

               Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of the MiFID Directive with regard to a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the interest rate swap arrangement entered into between the investor and the advising credit institution?

               3.

               In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the purchase contract concluded with the same credit institution?

               4.

               Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?

               5.

               In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19 of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to statutory investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.


title: Case C-69/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration
   (Case C-69/10)
   2010/C 100/40
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf

      Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?

               2.

               If the answer is in the negative, is the general principle of an effective remedy under Community law, prompted by Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?

      (1)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).


title: Case C-95/08: Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/14

         Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-95/08)
   (2008/C 116/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice (GLP), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (1);

               —

               Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for the implementation of Directive 2004/9/EC expired on 12 March 2004. The defendant is still not equipped with authorities having the competences necessary to inspect the laboratories and to audit the studies carried out by those laboratories to assess compliance with good laboratory practice.

      (1)  Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 28).


title: Case T-503/11: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — Al-Aqsa v Council

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/37

         Order of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Al-Aqsa v Council
   (Case T-503/11) (1)

   2014/C 194/49
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-360/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (Sabam) v Netlog NV

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/18

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (Sabam) v Netlog NV
      (Case C-360/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/30)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (Sabam)

         Defendant: Netlog NV

         Question referred

      Do Directives 2001/29 (1) and 2004/48, (2) in conjunction with Directives 95/46, (3) 2000/31 (4) and 2002/58, (5) construed in particular in the light of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, permit Member States to authorise a national court, before which substantive proceedings have been brought and on the basis merely of a statutory provision stating that: ‘They [the national courts] may also issue an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right’, to order a hosting service provider to introduce, for all its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, at its own cost and for an unlimited period, a system for filtering most of the information which is stored on its servers in order to identify on its servers electronic files containing musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which SABAM claims to hold rights, and subsequently to block the exchange of such files?

         (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

         (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

         (3)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

         (4)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

         (5)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).


title: Case T-69/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015  — Melt Water v OHIM (MELT WATER Original) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark MELT WATER Original — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Melt Water v OHIM (MELT WATER Original)

   (Case T-69/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark MELT WATER Original - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 065/46)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2013 (Case R 494/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MELT WATER Original as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case T-382/07: Action brought on 5 October 2007 — France v Council

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/40

         Action brought on 5 October 2007 — France v Council
   (Case T-382/07)
   (2007/C 283/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliart, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (1);

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Regulation contested in the context of the present action is intended to give a uniform definition of drift nets. The applicant disputes the definition as laid down by the Regulation in that it includes nets such as ‘thonailles’ in the category of drift nets and thus includes them within the scope of the prohibition on their use laid down in Article 11a of Regulation No 894/97 (2).
   In support of its action, firstly, the applicant submits that the contested regulation must be annulled because of lack of reasoning since it does not state the reasons for which it widens the scope of the restrictions on use applicable to drift nets to include stabilised nets such as thonailles.
   Secondly, it submits that the contested regulation also breaches the principle of proportionality in that the prohibition of drift nets, as they are defined, is manifestly inappropriate having regard, on the one hand, to the objectives pursued by that prohibition and, on the other, to the particular characteristics of the thonaille in comparison with other types of drift net.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the prohibition on drift nets as defined in Regulation No 809/2007 is discriminatory in that treating the thonaille type of net in the same manner as other drift nets is not justified, having regard to their characteristics.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997 L 132, p. 1).


title: Case T-313/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 — Hewlett-Packard v Commission (Refusal of repayment of import duties — Action for annulment — Importation of printers and printer cartridges from Singapore — Particular circumstances — Equity clause — Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 — Hewlett-Packard v Commission
   (Case T-313/04) (1)

   (Refusal of repayment of import duties - Action for annulment - Importation of printers and printer cartridges from Singapore - Particular circumstances - Equity clause - Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92)
   (2006/C 294/95)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hewlett-Packard GmbH (Böblingen, Germany) (represented by: F. Boulanger, M. Mrozek and M. Tervooren, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision REM 06/02 of 7 April 2004 advising the German authorities that the applicant should not receive repayment of import duties on printers and printer cartridges from Singapore.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-483/99: Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 79/6                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
          (g) a contractual restriction has or has not been            the Court Registry on 20 December 1999, for a preliminary
              imposed by the proprietor and made legally bind-         ruling in the case of Georg and Helga Heininger against
              ing upon the first purchaser prohibiting sale for        Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the following
              the purposes of resale to anyone other than the          questions:
              ultimate consumer.
                                                                       1. Does Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985
     B. does the issue of whether or not there was consent by               to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
          the proprietor to the placing of those goods on the               away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31 —
          market within the EEA. within the meaning of the                  ‘directive on doorstep-selling’ also cover mortgages on
          Directive, depend on some further or other factor or              land (S.3(2)(2) of the Verbraucherkreditgesetz — consumer
          factors, and if so which?                                         credit law) and, as regards the right of cancellation provided
                                                                            for in Article 5, does it take precedence over Council
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to               Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade             approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
    marks (OJ L 40 of 11. 2.1 989, p. 1).                                   provisions of the Member States concerning consumer
                                                                            credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48 ‘consumer-credit directive’)?
                                                                       2. If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative,
                                                                            Is the national legislature precluded by the directive on
                                                                            doorstep-selling from applying the time-limit placed in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                     S. 7(2)(3) of the consumer credit law on the right of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent                        cancellation also in cases where the subject-matter of a
Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case                 doorstep transaction was the grant of a mortgage loan
of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under                   within the meaning of S. 3(2)(2) of the consumer credit
the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss                      law and where the disclosure of information, as provided
                 (UK) Ltd against Costco UK Ltd                             for in Article 4 of the directive, was not made?
                           (Case C-416/99)
                            (2000/C 79/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),           Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission
of 22 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on           of the European Communities against the French Republic
29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1)
Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws                                     (Case C-483/99)
of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against
Costco UK Ltd on questions which are identical to those in
                                                                                (2000/C 79/13)
Case   C-415/99 (1),   1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Strauss (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc.         Court of Justice on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
(1) See p. 5 of this Official journal.
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       (1) declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 2(1) and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                   (2)(iii) of Decree 93-1298 of 13 December 1993, accord-
hof by order of that court of 30 November 1999 in the                       ing to which the following rights attach to the ‘golden
case of Georg and Helga Heininger against Bayerische                        share’ held by the French State in the State company
                   Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG                                 Elf-Aquitaine:
                           (Case C-481/99)                                  (a) any shareholding which exceeds the ceilings applying
                                                                                to the direct or indirect holding by a natural or legal
                            (2000/C 79/12)                                       person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, of
                                                                                one tenth, one fifth or one third of the capital of, or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           voting rights in, the company must first be approved
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                           by the Minister for Economic Affairs (Article 2(1) of
(Federal Supreme Court) of 30 November 1999, received at                         the Decree);
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 79/7
    (b) a decision to transfer or use as security the assets listed      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
         in the annex to the Decree may be opposed — the                 Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio (District Court, Brescia,
         assets in the present case being the majority of the            Second Chamber [Liquidations]) by order of 28 October
         capital of four subsidiaries of the parent company,             1999 in Case C-485/99, by orders of 30 October 1999 in
         namely Elf-Aquitaine Production, Elf-Antar France,              Cases C-486/99, C-487/99, C-488/99 and C-492/99, and by
         Elf-Gabon SA and Elf-Congo SA (Article 2(3) of the              orders of 10 November 1999 in Cases C-489/99, C-490/99
         Decree),                                                        and C-491/99, Gottinghen SpA and Others v Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
         and by failing to lay down sufficiently precise and
         objective criteria for approval of, or opposition to, the
                                                                                (Cases C-485/99 to C-492/99)
         operations referred to above, the French Republic has
         failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 43
         to 48 EC and Article 56 EC (formerly Articles 52 to 58                                     (2000/C 79/14)
         and 73b of the EC Treaty);
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
                                                                         Seconda Sezione Stralcio (District Court, Brescia, Second
                                                                         Chamber [Liquidations]), by order of 28 October 1999 in Case
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          C-485/99 (Gottinghen SpA, Tenuta Mombello Srl and Artea
                                                                         Srl v Ministero delle Finanze), by orders of 30 October 1999
Direct investment constitutes a form of movement of capital.             in Cases C-486/99 (Flos SpA, Flos Consulting Srl, Collebeato
In parallel with this, the acquisition by an investor from               Center, Light Shop Srl, Light Shop 2 Srl and Light Contract Srl
another Member State of the European Union of a controlling              v Ministero delle Finanze), C-487/99 (Petra Srl v Ministero
interest in a State undertaking is also covered by the provisions        delle Finanze), C-488/99 (Supercar Srl v Ministero delle
of the EC Treaty concerning the right of establishment.                  Finanze) and C-492/99 (Impresa Colleoni Giacomo Figli Srl v
National rules laying down general authorisation and veto                Ministero delle Finanze), and by orders of 10 November 1999
procedures may create, even where they are applicable without            in Cases C-489/99 (Immobiliare Flavia Srl in liquidation v
distinction, obstacles to the right of establishment and to the          Ministero delle Finanze), C-490/99 (Azzini SpA v Ministero
free movement of capital, inasmuch as they may impede, or                delle Finanze) and C-491/99 (Falegnameria Carminati di
render less attractive, the exercise of the fundamental freedoms         Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc [formerly Carminati Agosti-
guaranteed by the EC Treaty. Consequently, the French rules              no Srl] v Ministero delle Finanze), received at the Court
referred to in the form of order sought cannot be held to                Registry on 21 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling on
be compatible with Articles 56 EC and 43 EC (formerly                    the following questions:
Articles 73b and 52 of the EC Treaty) unless they fall within
the exceptions referred to in Articles 46, 58 and 296 EC or              1. Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
are justified by overriding public-interest considerations and                1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
coupled with criteria which are objective and permanent and                   supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
which have been publicly promulgated, in such a way as to                     lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
restrict to an absolute minimum the discretion exercisable by                 69/335/EEC (1), inasmuch as it provides that the adminis-
the national authorities.                                                     trative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for registration
                                                                              of ‘other company documents’ for each of the years from
The clarification provided by the French Government concern-                  1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the sum of ITL 750 000
ing the case-law of the Cour Constitutionelle (Constitutional                 for public limited companies and partnerships limited by
Court) on the limits to the discretionary power enjoyed by                    shares and ITL 400 000 for private limited companies?
the Minister for Economic Affairs is vague as regards the
interpretation applicable to the concept of the national interest        2. Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
as opposed to the interests of foreign investors; consequently,               munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the
it does not dispel the Commission’s concerns regarding the                    sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
compatibility of the rules in question with Community law.                    sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
As to the French authorities’ concern to prevent companies                    according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
from third countries from gaining control of the companies in                 that Law entered into force (2.5 % per annum) and not
question, the Commission points out the possibilities offered                 according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
by Article 57 EC as regards the maintenance of the restrictions               respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
existing in 1993 in respect of the movement of capital to or                  subsequently amended?
from third countries involving direct investment; France has
not, however, made use of that option. Lastly, the fact that the
French Government has made only limited use of the rules in
issue cannot justify the introduction of rules which are not in          (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
                                                                             indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition
conformity with Community law, even where those rules are                    1969 (11), p. 412).
applicable only to limited cases.


C 83/16                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            le Strade v SCA RL CMC Cooperativa Muratori Cementisti
                                                                           Ravenna, SpA ICLA Costruzioni Generali and SpA Impresa
                                                                           Toto e Toto.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 28 October 2001.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-337/00 ( 1)
Action brought on 21 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                                              (2003/C 83/32)
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-80/03)
                                                                           By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           (2003/C 83/30)
                                                                           from the register of Case C-337/00: Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
21 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                       Removal from the register of Case C-188/01 ( 1)
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 1999/93/EC ( 1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on                                          (2003/C 83/33)
      a Community framework for electronic signatures, or in
      any event by failing to inform the Commission of those
      provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-188/01 (Reference for a preliminary
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenats Salzburg):
                                                                           Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
The period within which the measures had to be adopted
expired on 19 July 2001.
( 1) OJ L 13 of 19.1.2000, p. 12.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-375/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/34)
        Removal from the register of Case C-173/00 ( 1)
                                                                           By order of 15 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                           (2003/C 83/31)                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-375/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
By order of 14 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                    (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
from the register of Case C-173/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS — Ente Nazionale per


title: Case C-447/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg i. L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-309/12 Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg v European Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/25

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg i. L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-309/12 Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg v European Commission
   (Case C-447/14 P)
   2014/C 421/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg i. L. (represented by: A. Kerkmann, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG, SecAnim GmbH, Knochen-und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-309/12 Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission
                   (1) and, if the Court of Justice takes the view that it has all the necessary information to be able to itself give final judgment in the matter, annul Commission Decision of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C-19/2010, ex NN 23/2010) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg, Document C(2012) 2557 final, and order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court;

               2.

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court, and reserve the decision on costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies, essentially, on the following pleas in law:
   The General Court wrongly classified the financing of the epidemic reserve by the contribution payments of the appellant’s members as State aid by holding that, with regard to the activity of providing animal epidemic reserve capacity in its area of competence, the appellant must be treated as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is true that the General Court correctly states first of all that activities which fall within the exercise of public powers are not of an economic nature justifying the application of the TFEU rules of competition. The General Court also correctly states that it is necessary to examine each of the appellant’s activities separately in order to determine whether they may be a public activity. However, the General Court wrongly concluded that the provision of the epidemic reserve capacity does not fall within the exercise of public powers, but is an economic activity which classifies the appellant as a whole as an undertaking.
   In addition, in finding that the appellant did not incur any net costs for the provision of the epidemic reserve, the General Court infringed the obligation to state the grounds of judgments. It also failed to examine the appellant’s evidence proving that a cross-subsidisation of economic activities by contribution payments is excluded.
   Contrary to the findings of the General Court, the provision of an epidemic reserve capacity, including its organisation and financing by the appellant, constitutes a service of general economic interest (SGEI). The judgment under appeal therefore infringes Article 106(2) and Article 107(1) TFEU.
   In addition, the General Court also infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by finding both that the appellant obtained an advantage because the criteria of the Altmark
       (2) judgment of the Court of Justice were not met and that the contribution payments used for the rehabilitation of inherited waste constituted aid.
   The General Court also infringed Article 106(2) TFEU by finding that the appellant should not have alleged infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU without challenging the Union SGEI guidelines applied by the Commission.

      (1)  ECLI:EU:T:2014:676

      (2)  Judgment in Altmark, C-280/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415.


title: Case C-251/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Östersunds tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 6 May 2013 — E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag v Kammarkollegiet and Others

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Östersunds tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 6 May 2013 — E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag v Kammarkollegiet and Others
   (Case C-251/13)
   2013/C 377/10
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Östersunds tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag

      Defendants: Kammarkollegiet, Ljustorp socken ekonomisk förening, Länsstyrelsen i Västernorrlands län, Murberget Länsmuseet Västernorrland, Naturskyddsföreningen Timrå, Naturvårdsverket, Sveriges Sportfiske- och Fiskevårdsförbund, Timrå kommun, Miljö- och byggnadsnämnden, Älvräddarnas samorganisation
   On 20 August 2013, the President of Court ordered the discontinuance of the case.


title: Case T-91/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2008 — WWF-UK v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 — Recovery of cod stocks — Setting of the TACs for 2007 — Measure of general application — Not affected individually — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/20

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2008 — WWF-UK v Council
   (Case T-91/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 - Recovery of cod stocks - Setting of the TACs for 2007 - Measure of general application - Not affected individually - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 183/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: WWF-UK (Godalming, Surrey, United Kingdom) (represented by: M.R. Stein, Solicitor, P. Sands and J. Simor, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino and M. Moore, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and M. van Heezik, Agents)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Council Regulation No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1), in so far as it fixes the total allowable catches (‘TAC’) for 2007 in respect of the fishing of cod in the areas covered by Council Regulation No 423/2004 of 26 February 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (OJ 2004 L 70, p. 8)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               WWF-UK Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

               3.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-120/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — BFA v Council

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/28

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — BFA v Council
   (Case T-120/11) (1)

   2011/C 319/58
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-371/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 14 September 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Isaac International Limited

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/50

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 14 September 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Isaac International Limited
   (Case C-371/09)
   2009/C 267/84
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Isaac International Limited

      Questions referred

               (1)

               In circumstances such as those of the present case, where an importer is established and operates in two Member States and imports goods in one Member State and immediately transports them to a second Member State, does the end-use authorisation required for the purpose of obtaining exemption from anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation 88/97 (1) involve more than one customs authority for the purpose of Article 292(3) of Commission Regulation 2454/93 (2)?

               (2)

               In circumstances such as those of the present case, where an importer failed to obtain the necessary authorisation for use of the end-use procedure envisaged by Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation 88/97, can exemption from anti-dumping duty nevertheless apply pursuant to Article 212a of Council Regulation 2913/92 (3)?

               (3)

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, in assessing whether a trader in a situation such as that of Isaac has been obviously negligent,

                           (a)

                           are the provisions of Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation 88/97 and Article 292(3) of Commission Regulation 2454/93 sufficiently clear that a trader who failed to ascertain, by consulting the Official Journal, that the simplified authorisation was not available to it due to the involvement of more than one customs authority, must be regarded as obviously negligent?

                           (b)

                           Alternatively, if the relevant provisions are to be regarded as complex, would it be incumbent on a trader to seek clarification from the taxing authorities prior to undertaking the importations? Does the answer to this question depend on whether the trader subjectively, but erroneously, concluded that the relevant provisions were clear in their application?

                           (c)

                           How is the experience of a trader, in a situation such as that of Isaac, whose main business is the import of bicycle parts from China, who employs five members of staff to deal with importation and has undertaken 33 similar importations in a period of 16 month to be classified? In particular, must such a trader be regarded as experienced?

                           (d)

                           Are the taxing authorities of a Member State, in assessing whether a trader, in a situation such as that of Isaac, has been obviously negligent, entitled to rely on published legislation such as the UK Tariff which, though available for consultation without charge at certain officers of the taxing authorities and other public libraries, is only available over the internet on payment of a yearly subscription?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 of 20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, OJ L 17, p. 17

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, p. 1

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
   OJ L 302, p. 1


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 December 1995 in Case T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson and Others v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 64/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
2 . orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,               Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
      including those relating to the proceedings for the             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
      adoption of interim measures.                                   Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaide, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first, for
                                                                      annulment of the decision of the Commission, addressed to
                                                                      the applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
                                                                      application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2 , with
                                                                      retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and, second, for an
                                                                      order requiring the Commission to bear the pecuniary
                                                                      effects of such regrading, together with interest thereon —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                       ( Second Chamber )                             Schintgen, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 December
                    of 14 December 1995                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
in Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European
                           Parliament (*)
                                                                      1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (No need to give a decision)
                              96/C 64/26 )
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all of the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
In Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Howald ( Luxembourg),
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , both
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against European Parliament ( Agents: Didier
Petersheim and Ezio Perillo ) — application for annulment of
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Vacancy Notice No 7346 inviting applications for the post
                                                                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of Language Adviser ( Grade LA 3 ) in the Danish Translation
Division — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                of 22 December 1995
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, D. Barrington and P.            in Case T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson and Others
Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                          v. Commission of the European Communities
14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                                                ( 96/C 64/28 )
1 . there is no need to give a decision;                                             (Language of the case: English)
2 . the European Parliament is to pay the costs.                      In Case T-2 19/95 R: Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre
                                                                      Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French
0 ) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                     Polynesia, representd by Phon van den Biesen, of the
                                                                      Amsterdam Bar, and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                      assisted during the written procedure by Gerrit Betlem and
                                                                      Seven Deimann, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the office of Dei Gréng, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
                                                                      and Thomas Cusack ), supported by French Republic
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Agents : Catherine de Salins, Marc Fonbaustier and
                    of 15 December 1995                               Jean-Francois Dobelle ) — application for suspension of the
in Case T-131/95 : Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the            operation of the decision of the Commission of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                          European Communities of 23 October 1995 regarding
                                                                      French nuclear tests and for an order that the Commission
(Confirmatory act — New and material fact —                           take all measures necessary to preserve and protect the
   Inadmissibility — Costs — Costs unreasonably caused)               applicants' rights under the EAEC Treaty — the President of
                            ( 96/C 64/27 )                            the Court of First Instance made an order on 22 December
                                                                      1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . the French Republic is granted leave to intervene in
In Case T-131 /95 : Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the                 support of the form of order sought by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     Commission;
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 3 . 96          1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 64/ 13
2 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                Instance of the European Communities on 23 November
                                                                      1995 by Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana ( Oficemen ),
3.   costs are reserved.                                              whose registered office is in Madrid, represented by Jaime
                                                                      Folguera Crespo and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the
                                                                      Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                     of 21 December 1995
                                                                      — annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
in Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of
             the Regions of the European Union
                                                                          Treaty, the decision of the Commission of February
                                                                           1994 whereby it gives definite effect to its proposal to
                            96/C 64/29 )                                  refuse to adopt protective measures against imports of
                                                                          cement from Turkey, Romania and Tunisia ,
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez, a member of the               — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
temporary staff of the Economic and Social Committee of                    by not adopting within a reasonable period a decision
the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                            bringing to a conclusion anti-dumping proceedings, the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 Commission has infringed Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the basic
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis                Regulation, and
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, supported by Union
Syndicale-Bruxelles, established in Brussels, represented by          — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
Veronique Lebrun, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 Oficemen in these proceedings.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, and Economic and Social
Committee of the European Communities ( Agent: Moises                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Bermejo Garde ), v. Committee of the Regions of the
European Union, represented by Dominique Lagasse, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            The applicant, an association whose object is, inter alia, to
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of        defend and promote the interests of the Spanish cement
the Commission of the European Communities, Wagner                    sector, challenges the decision of the defendant institution
Centre, Kirchberg — application for suspension of the                 not to proceed with the anti-dumping proceedings against
procedure in competition CdR A/03/95 , organized by the               imports into Spain of cement from Turkey, Tunisia and
Committee of the Regions, alternatively of the appointment            Romania , which was initiated by the complaint lodged by it
procedures anticipated in consequence of that competition             with the Commission . The contested decision is based on the
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order          finding that the protective measures sought were
on 21 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as               unnecessary since production and volume of sales remained
follows :                                                             stable, market share and the profitability of the sector
                                                                      remained significant and since costs had risen as a result of
 1 . the Union Syndicale-Bruxelles and the Economic and               excessive overcapacity .
      Social Committee are granted leave to intervene in
      support of the form of order sought by the applicant;           The applicant claims, first, that Article 4 of Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2423/88 was infringed as a result of the manifest
2 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                error of assessment and the breach of the principle that due
                                                                      care must be exercised and of the principle of good
 3 . the costs are reserved.                                          administration on which the decision to               shelve   the
                                                                      proceeding is based. The applicant points out in this regard
                                                                      that, contrary to the contention of the Commission, Spanish
                                                                      producers have suffered a significant loss of their share of
                                                                      the market and have been forced to reduce their prices as a
                                                                      result of the dumped imports . Moreover, the fall in profits in
Action brought on 23 November 1995 by Asociacion de                   the sector cannot be attributed to any alleged overcapacity,
 Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana ( Oficemen ) against the             but to the fact that it is impossible to increase prices in order
          Commission of the European Communities                      to reflect the increase in production costs .
                        ( Case T-2 12/95 )
                           ( 96/C 64/30 )                              Secondly, the decision which forms the subject-matter of the
                                                                       dispute infringes Article 9 of the basic Regulation, referred
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                        to above, inasmuch as the Commission is not competent to
                                                                       conclude anti-dumping proceedings without adopting
 An action against the Commission of the European                      protective measures, contrary to the position adopted by the
 Communities was brought before th£ Court of First                     Council .