title: Case T-289/04: Action brought on 15 July 2004 by Dimitra Lantzoni against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/35

         Action brought on 15 July 2004 by Dimitra Lantzoni against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-289/04)
   (2004/C 262/68)
   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 15 July 2004 by Dimitra Lantzoni, residing in Übersyren (Luxembourg), represented by Clara Marhuenda, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant notified to the applicant on 7 October 2003 rejecting her complaint about the promotion points awarded to her in the 1999/2000 promotion procedure and in the 2001 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   On 5 February 2002, the applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, was informed of the decision to award her no promotion points for the years 1999 and 2000. On 16 January 2003, the applicant was also informed that she had been awarded one promotion point in the 2001 promotion procedure. She complained about the latter decision and subsequently made another complaint, concerning the award of no points for the years 1999 and 2000. Her complaint was rejected as out of time for the years 1999 and 2000 and as unfounded as regards the year 2001.
   In support of this action, the applicant submits that the contested award of points is in breach of the decision of the Court of 18 October 2000 introducing that system, on the ground that it was not made on the basis of her staff reports, as the points awarded were wholly inconsistent with those reports. As regards the rejection, on the ground that it was out of time, of her complaint about the award of no points for 1999 and 2000, the applicant submits that the delay of almost two years in communicating her staff report for 1999/2000 to her prevented her from being aware of the errors in the award of points for that promotions procedure. According to the applicant, the legal certainty of the promotion procedure concerned would not in any way be called into question if she were permitted to contest the failure to award her any points for those two years, given that the number of points obtained does not automatically guarantee a promotion.


title: Case C-173/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Community Customs Code — Article 32(1)(c) — Determination of the customs value — Royalties or licence fees in respect of the goods being valued — Meaning — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 160 — ‘Condition of sale’ of the goods being valued — Payment of royalties or licence fees to an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer of the goods — Article 158(3) — Adjustment and apportionment measures)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-173/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Article 32(1)(c) - Determination of the customs value - Royalties or licence fees in respect of the goods being valued - Meaning - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 160 - ‘Condition of sale’ of the goods being valued - Payment of royalties or licence fees to an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer of the goods - Article 158(3) - Adjustment and apportionment measures))
   (2017/C 144/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GE Healthcare GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as, first, not requiring the amount of royalties or licence fees to be determined at the time when a licence agreement was concluded or when the customs debt was incurred in order for those royalties or licence fees to be regarded as related to the goods being valued and, second, allowing such royalties or licence fees to be ‘related to the goods being valued’ even if those royalties or licence fees relate only partly to those goods.

               2.

               Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 160 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1875/2006 of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that royalties or licence fees are a ‘condition of sale’ of the goods being valued where, within a single group of undertakings, those royalties or licence fees are required to be paid by an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer and were paid to that same undertaking.

               3.

               Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1875/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment and apportionment measures, referred to in those provisions respectively, may be applied where the customs value of the goods at issue has been determined, not on the basis of Article 29 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, but on the basis of the alternative method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-219/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — DSV Road v Commission (Customs union — Importation of diskettes originating in Thailand — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — DSV Road v Commission
   (Case T-219/07) (1)

   (Customs union - Importation of diskettes originating in Thailand - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)
   2009/C 205/58
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: DSV Road NV (Puurs, Belgium) (represented by: A. Poelmans, A. Calewaert and R. de Wit, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and S. Schønberg, Agents, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 24 April 2007 informing the Belgian authorities that they may proceed with post-clearance recovery of import duties on diskettes originating in Thailand and that there are no grounds for granting remission of those duties (file reference REC 05/02).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders DSV Road NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-60/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 135/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
The applicant in the present case is a member of the Dole                                           (Case T-60/00)
Group of companies which is a group of companies engaged
in the production, purchase, consignment and sale of green
third-country bananas to, and in, the European Community,                                          (2000/C 135/46)
within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1442/93, of June 1993, laying down delay rules for
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas
into the Community (1).                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
The application concerns the damage suffered by the applicant              Communities on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou, resid-
through having to purchase export licences in the period from              ing at Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
1995 to 1998 in order to enable its agents to exercise rights              Bar.
to obtain import licences in order to sell bananas in the
Community. The applicant was entitled, through its agents, to
Category A banana import licences.                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of 5 July 1999 of the appointing
Regulation No 478/95(2) made the purchase and presentation                     authority refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation
of an export licence from certain countries a precondition for                 allowance;
the issue of the EC import licence.
                                                                           — annul the decision of 21 December 1999 by which the
                                                                               appointing authority rejects the applicant’s complaint that
                                                                               the contested decision should be annulled;
The European Court of Justice annulled Council Decision
94/800 (3) and the Commission Regulation No 478/95, to the
extent to which they discriminated between the different                   — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the expatriation
categories of operators set out in Council Regulation                          allowance as from 1 May 1999, minus, for the past, what
No 404/93 establishing the common organisation of the                          was granted to her by way of expatriation allowance;
market in bananas(4).
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant submits that the discriminatory nature and the
illegality of the above mentioned measures have caused it                  Pleas in law and main arguments
substantial loss and damage and constitute a breach of a
superior rule of law for the protection of the applicant.
                                                                           The applicant, an official of Greek nationality at the Council,
                                                                           claims in particular that, contrary to the contested decision,
                                                                           her principal residence, during the period of reference, was
(1) OJ L 142 of 25.6.1993, p. 62.                                          Athens. Although she arrived in Belgium in 1987, her
(2) Regulation No 478/95, of 1 March 1995, on additional rules for         residence in Brussels was only provisional and limited for the
    the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/95 as regards      purposes of studying. The functions she exercised in the
    the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the          Schengen General Secretariat between 1993 and 1999 should
    Community and amending (EEC) No. 1442/92 (OJ 1995 L 49, of             not be taken into account in respect of occupation within an
    4.3.1995, p. 13).
(3) Council Decision 94/800, of 22 December 1994, concerning the
                                                                           international organisation referred to in the second indent of
    conclusion on behalf of the Community, as regards matters              Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
    whithin its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
    Round multilateral negociations (1986-1994) (OJ L 336, of
    23.12.1994, p. 1).                                                     In taking the contested decision, the defendant committed a
(4) OJ L 471 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                           breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular of the second
                                                                           paragraph of Article 25 and Article 69 thereof, and of Annex
                                                                           VII thereto.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-347/03 Eugénio Branco, Lda v Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Subcontracting — Acquired rights — Reasonable time)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/37

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 June 2005
   in Case T-347/03 Eugénio Branco, Lda v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Subcontracting - Acquired rights - Reasonable time)
   (2005/C 217/82)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case T-347/03: Eugénio Branco, Lda, established in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by B. Belchior, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially A. Alves Vieira and A. Weimar and subsequently P. Andrade and A. Weimar, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 3455 of 23 October 2002 reducing financial assistance from the European Social Fund, in Case No 870302 P3 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.


title: Case T-734/16: Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/36

         Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission
   (Case T-734/16)
   (2016/C 462/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 29 January 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas.

               1.

               First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.

               2.

               Second plea, relating to the first period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the condition applied by the contested decision, namely the non-interruption of the service for more than one year, and provided for by Conclusion No 229/04 infringes Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 182, 23.7.2005

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/39

         (2005/C 193/65)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

      OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

      OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

      OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

      OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-88/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Age discrimination — Determining the pay of contractual employees of the State — Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz
   (Case C-88/08) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Age discrimination - Determining the pay of contractual employees of the State - Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18)
   2009/C 180/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Hütter

      Defendant: Technische Universität Graz

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation which excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account for the purpose of determining the remuneration of contractual public servants

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in order not to treat general education less favourably than vocational education and to promote the integration of young apprentices into the labour market, excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account for the purpose of determining the incremental step at which contractual public servants of a Member State are graded.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-198/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/9

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
   (Case C-198/16 P)
   (2016/C 279/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance in the light of the guidance to be provided by the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-570/13.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               As regards award criteria Nos 1 and 2: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant; breach of the principle of compensation for damage as regards its scope of application.

               2.

               As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee.

               3.

               Distortion and misrepresentation of the application and the evidence concerning the bid in respect of additional tasks; misinterpretation of the parameters relating to the concept of an abnormally low offer and of the rights of the parties to the proceedings to verification of the anomaly identified: breach of the tendering rules; distortion and misrepresentation of the appellant’s evidence.

               4.

               Misinterpretation of the actual and certain nature of the damage for which compensation is to be paid.


title: Case T-688/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Deloitte Consulting v Commission

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/23

         Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Deloitte Consulting v Commission
   (Case T-688/13)
   2014/C 93/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deloitte Consulting CVBA (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: K. De hornois and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Defendant to select the tender of the Applicant as fourth cascade contractor in the context of the Call for Tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/004 ABC III — Information and Communication Technology Advice, Benchmarking and Consulting Services (Lot 2) communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 15 October 2013 and to award the contract to the consortia PWC-EVERIS as first contractor, KPMG-TRASYS-KURT SALMON as second contractor and CGI Accenture as third contractor;

               —

               Annul at least the attacked Decision for as much as it did not exclude the first cascade contractor PWC-EVERIS for having included information on its financial offer within its technical offer;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s damages suffered for loss of the contract or alternatively for loss of opportunity on account of the tendering procedure in question;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and non-disclosure of the relative merits of the successful tenderers — art. 113 par. 2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 161 par. 2 and 3 of the Delegated Regulation and infringement of an essential procedural requirement- of the principle of the right to an effective remedy;

                           —

                           Although the subject matter of the tender being of high technical complexity and strategic importance, the content of the extracts of the Evaluation Report are short, superficial, simplistic, lacking indication of the strong and weak points of the evaluated tenders, limited to ‘qualifications’ without describing at all the substance of the answer. For some of the sub-criteria there is absolutely no motivation explaining the scores of the tenderers whereas the comments of the Evaluation Committee are often inconsistent with the scores awarded to the different tenderers. The deficiencies of the motivation of the attacked Decision impede the judicial review of the contested Decision, infringing the principle of the right to an effective remedy.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to use clear award criteria, based on which the contract can be awarded objectively; Violation of the distinction between selection criteria and award criteria;

                           —

                           The Technical Specifications consist of a considerable amount of vague sub-criteria. Hence, well informed and normally diligent tenderers are not able to interpret the specific award criterion. There is no clear indication on what would constitute a good or less good approach nor is there a qualitative element demonstrating which indicators could lead to a better or worse result. Furthermore, the Evaluation report contains a reference to selection criteria, which have been used to evaluate the technical proposal of the tenderers.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the tender specifications. Infringement of the principles of Transparency and Good Administration — Infringement of the Instructions to the tenders — reference of price within the technical offer;

                           —

                           One of the winning tenderers revealed important financial elements in the technical section of the tender, leading to the latter being inadmissible, since it infringed specific provisions of the Tender Specifications as well as the principle of non-discrimination and the Guidebook for Public Procurement of DIGIT that applies to the current case.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 (1a) of the Financial Regulation and of section 5.2.3.2. of the Tender Specifications — a conflict of interest;

                           —

                           Following article 107 of the Financial Regulation, the Defendant should assess whether the tenderers are subject to a conflict of interest during the procurement procedure for the framework contract, contrary to the case-by-case assessment during the execution of the framework contract that the Defendant privileges in this case. Any tenderer who was subject to a conflict of interest, as described during the award procedure, should have been excluded before the award of the framework contract and not, as the Defendant privileges itself in this case, on a case-by-case basis during the execution of the contract. Section 5.2.3.2. of the Tender Specifications is a requirement even more stringent than the conflict of interest as defined in article 107 of the Financial Regulation. Based on the above, the Defendant should have rejected some of the winning tenderers.


title: Case T-396/08: Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/30

         Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission
   (Case T-396/08)
   (2008/C 327/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the first paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3178 final of 2 July 2008 in State aid case C 18/2007; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application for annulment relates to Commission Decision C(2008) 3178 final of 2 July 2008 in State aid case C 18/2007, in so far as a large part of the training aid notified, which the Freistaat Sachsen and the Land Sachsen-Anhalt intended to grant to the express courier services company, DHL, is declared to be incompatible with the common market.
   In particular, the Freistaat Sachsen and the Land Sachsen-Anhalt rely on the following pleas in law in support of their claims.
   First, the applicants object to the Commission's refusal to approve a large part of the notified aid, since the training aid is not ‘necessary’ for the training measures in question to be implemented. By introducing a general test of necessity in individual cases as a prerequisite for approval of the notified aid, the Commission contravenes the binding effect of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 (1) and infringes the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations. The assessment criteria laid down by the Regulation are binding also in respect of aid above the exemption threshold.
   Second, the Commission's approach, which makes approval of the notified training aid dependent on its necessity, is also wrong in law because it unlawfully ignores the positive market externalities of the training measures supported by the notified training aid. Such market externalities are in themselves sufficient to justify the compatibility of the notified training aid with the common market.
   Third, the Commission wrongly concludes that the necessary incentive effect of the aid for the chosen location is lacking. In fact the training aid is necessary because it was a contributory factor in DHL's decision on Leipzig/Halle as its choice of location and DHL would not otherwise have undertaken any training there. Moreover, the Commission's assertion that comparable training costs would also have arisen in alternative locations is unfounded.
   Fourth, the Commission relied on inappropriate criteria in its assessment of necessity. In particular, the Commission relies on subjective criteria, which go beyond objective necessity. Moreover, the Commission carries out its assessment on the basis of statutory provisions on training measures, which significantly disadvantages those Member States in which training content is regulated by law.
   Fifth, the contested decision lacks adequate reasoning.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 20); amended by Regulation (EC) No 363/2004 (OJ 2004 L 63, p. 20) and Regulation (EC) No 1976/2006 (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 85).


title: Case T-204/13 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/33

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-204/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 45/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 in Case F-95/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-604/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 16 September 2013 in Case T-386/10 Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/13

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 16 September 2013 in Case T-386/10 Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-604/13 P)
   2014/C 24/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Janssen and T. Kapp, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case T-386/10, and annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures in so far as it concerns the appellant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed on the appellant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds:

               First, the General Court infringed Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), the principle of certainty, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality in interpreting Article 23(2), second sentence, of Regulation No 1/2003 as a ceiling, thereby finding that the Commission did not erroneously determine the amount of the fine and putting itself in a position in which it was not able to reduce the fine as appropriate.

               Second, the General Court infringed Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, since it failed to have regard to the unlawful nature of the 2006 Guidelines in that account should not be taken of the duration and impact of infringements committed by ‘single-product’ undertakings.

               Third, the General Court failed to recognise that the respondent should have exercised its discretion under Number 37 of the 2006 Guidelines so as to apply a fine under the 10 % ceiling to ‘single-product’ undertakings.

               Moreover, the General Court infringed the principle of non-retroactivity by approving the use by the Commission of the 2006 Guidelines to calculate the fine.

               Furthermore, the General Court erroneously calculated the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant, namely in relation to the geographical extent, the participation in only one of the three product groups and the appellant’s secondary role.

               Lastly, the General Court infringed the principle that proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Case T-300/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2009 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Act which upheld the applicant’s claims in their entirety — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/16

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2009 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)
   (Case T-300/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Act which upheld the applicant’s claims in their entirety - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 233/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Tsing Yi, Hong Kong) (represented by: D. McFarland, barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (case R 889/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd and Tresplain Investments Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-474/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Giorgis v OHIM — Comigel (Shape of two packaged goblets) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of two packaged goblets — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Giorgis v OHIM — Comigel (Shape of two packaged goblets)
      (Case T-474/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of two packaged goblets - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Giorgio Giorgis (Milan, Italy) (represented by: I. Prado and A. Tornato, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Comigel SAS (Saint-Julien-lès-Metz, France) (represented by: S. Guerlain, J. Armengaud and C. Mateu, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2012 (Case R 1301/2011-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Comigel SAS and Mr Giorgio Giorgis.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Giorgio Giorgis to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case C-457/09: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Claude Chartry v Etat belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 234 EC — Assessing whether a national rule is consistent with both European Union law and the national Constitution — National legislation laying down the priority nature of preliminary proceedings for reviewing constitutionality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Need for a connection with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/7

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Claude Chartry v Etat belge
   (Case C-457/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 234 EC - Assessing whether a national rule is consistent with both European Union law and the national Constitution - National legislation laying down the priority nature of preliminary proceedings for reviewing constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Need for a connection with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2011/C 252/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Claude Chartry

      Defendant: Etat belge

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Article 6 EU and of Article 234 EC — Mandatory reference by national courts to the Belgian Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation — Validity, under Community law, of the provision requiring such reference — Infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the rights of the defence if the ordinary courts may not review the national rules’ compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Time-barring of recovery under tax assessments raised by the tax authority in respect of ‘profits from self-employment’

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-211/99: Action brought on 22 September 1999 by Borrekuil B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 6/23
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by J.H. Gankema,                    Action brought on 22 September 1999 by Borrekuil B.V.
trading as Bovanda Oil, against the Commission of the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-211/99)
                         (Case T-210/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/42)
                          (2000/C 6/41)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 22 September 1999 by Borrekuil
                                                                        B.V., of Beek (Netherlands), represented by P.W.A.M. van Roy,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               of the Beek Bar.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 September 1999 by J.H. Ganke-
ma, trading as Bovanda Oil, of Veendam (Netherlands),                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
represented by E. Maas, of the Groningen Bar.
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                            of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Com-                   Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
mission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999                 Germany, and order that no demand for repayment should
concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service              be made;
stations in the region bordering Germany, and declare that the
subsidy granted to Bovanda Oil is not contrary to any                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
European legislation.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                        T-210/99.
The contested decision provides inter alia that the Netherlands
should reclaim the subsidies granted to 450 service stations in         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
the vicinity of the German border, including that of the
applicant, by way of compensation for an increase in excise
duty introduced in the Netherlands with effect from 1 July
1997. As regards certain of those service stations, the Com-
mission took the view that the Netherlands had not provided
any, or any sufficient, information concerning the relationships
and links between owners and suppliers showing that the aid
could have no appreciable effect on trade and competition
between Member States.                                                  Action brought on 29 September 1999 by Autoservice
                                                                        Fermans Exclusive B.V. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant operates, for his own account and at his own
risk, a service station belonging to him. He states that he has                                 (Case T-215/99)
no link with any particular fuel supplier, and that the subsidy
granted to him therefore likewise falls within the de minimis
rule (2).                                                                                (2000/C 6/43)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
(2) Commission notice, OJ 1996 C 68, p. 9.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 29 September 1999 by Autoservice
                                                                        Fermans Exclusive B.V., of Amstenrade (Netherlands), rep-
                                                                        resented by H.F.A Bronneberg, of the Geelen Bar.


title: Case C-490/10: Action brought on 12 October 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/18

         Action brought on 12 October 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-490/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues, L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96; (1)

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the European Parliament seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 by which the Council established a common framework for the notification to the Commission of information on investment projects in energy infrastructure. The regulation was adopted by the Council on the dual legal basis of Articles 337 TFEU and 187 EA. According to the Parliament, the Council’s choice of legal basis is erroneous because the measures covered by the contested regulation fall within the energy responsibilities of the Union which are specifically governed by Article 194 TFEU. Those measures should, therefore, have been adopted on the basis of Article 194(2) TFEU in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure laid down in that provision, instead of on the basis of Article 337 TFEU, which does not provide for any involvement by the Parliament. In addition, the Parliament takes the view that it was not necessary to rely also on Article 187 EA in order to adopt the measures at issue.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 180, p. 7.


title: Case C-155/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision 2006/1016/EC — Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community — Choice of legal basis — Article 179 EC — Article 181a EC — Compatibility)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-155/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision 2006/1016/EC - Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community - Choice of legal basis - Article 179 EC - Article 181a EC - Compatibility)
   (2008/C 327/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Baas and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz, M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Aresu and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment — Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community (OJ 2006 L 414, p. 95) — Choice of legal basis — Article 181a EC — Decision essentially concerning developing countries — Need to have recourse to a dual legal basis — Articles 179 EC and 181a EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2006/1016 be maintained for European Investment Bank financing arrangements entered into before the entry into force, within a period of 12 months from the date of delivery of this judgment, of a new decision adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Articles 179 EC and 181a EC together;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-744/16: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Generis — Farmacêutica v EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/28

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Generis — Farmacêutica v EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)
   (Case T-744/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/46)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case T-441/13: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality — Force of res judicata — Time-limit for bringing an action — Admissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/39

         Order of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-441/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality - Force of res judicata - Time-limit for bringing an action - Admissibility - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 354/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 July 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Eyad Makhlouf shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case T-294/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2013 — CBp Carbon Industries v OHIM (CARBON GREEN) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Community word mark CARBON GREEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2013 — CBp Carbon Industries v OHIM (CARBON GREEN)
   (Case T-294/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Community word mark CARBON GREEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 147/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBp Carbon Industries, Inc. (Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and J. Fish, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 1361/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CARBON GREEN as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CBp Carbon Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case T-181/02: Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/31
—     order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 %            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of the
      accident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73           —      annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
      of the Staff Regulations;                                                 the year 2001;
—     make an order for damages in the amount of                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
      non-material damage which the contested decision caused
      to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
      to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and as
      equitable compensation for the non-material damage;                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
                                                                         annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-
                                                                         siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
                                                                         performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal on
Following the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation to          factual allegations which the applicant contests and which will
giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that           impair his future career development.
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from total
                                                                         The applicant claims that, under the provisions on data
permanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.
                                                                         protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
                                                                         electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her            ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data.
to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73         Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that
of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result       it is based on incorrect factual information.
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of the
Medical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to be
regarded as accidental.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                         GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission
Accordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendant                             of the European Communities
infringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore,                                  (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/52)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   the European Central Bank                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June
                                                                         2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
                         (Case T-179/02)                                 Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 202/51)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         —      Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
                                                                                12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                         Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Lautex GmbH in liquidation;
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer.                                                                  —      Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/32                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.8.2002
Pleas and main arguments                                                  Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon
                                                                          Tsetis Farmakeftika Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki
                                                                          kai Emboriki Eteria against Office for the Harmonization
                                                                           in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a
                                                                                (Case T-182/02)
group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
EUR 7 834 million.                                                                                (2002/C 202/53)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the Commission was incorrect in its
finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH constituted a
unit or group of undertakings and that therefore the ability to           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
approve rescue and restructuring aid could only be assessed in            Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
favour of the group, that the Deggendorf doctrine was to be               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
applied and the aid was to be claimed back from both members              10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika
of the group. The Commission’s Decision is said to be based               Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emboriki Eteria, whose
on the erroneous finding that the applicant’s case did not                registered office is in Kato Kifissia, Attiki (Greece), represented
constitute a residual arrangement under the terms of the                  by Eleni Gioti-Manthou and Maria Bra.
exception provided for in footnote 10 of the Guidelines (1). By
not applying that exceptional provision the Commission
infringed the principle of equal treatment and provided no                The applicant claims that the Court should:
objective reason for the unequal treatment.
                                                                          —     find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the
                                                                                marks in question;
The applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that                —     annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of
the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH were to be deemed to                         Appeal of 27 February 2002;
constitute a group was erroneous since the applicant is
controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by the liquidator. In              —     order the Office to pay the costs of all the proceedings,
consequence of the erroneous assumptions made by the                            including lawyers’ fees incurred by the applicant.
Commission the contested decision was already unlawful and
liable to be set aside for breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in
conjunction with the Guidelines.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In the alternative the applicant maintains that the Commission
                                                                          Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
wrongly classified the relevant measure as aid or, in the
                                                                          munity trade mark:
alternative, assumed a level of aid intensity greater than was
the case. In addition, in finding that the decision of 1999 to            The Community trade            Word mark ‘Apotel’ in respect of
claim repayment of aid concerning Erba Lautex GmbH had                    mark concerned:                certain goods in Class 5 (anal-
not been complied with, the Commission manifestly erred in                                               gesics and antipyretics) — appli-
its findings of facts in that regard.                                                                    cation No 613554
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to     Biofarma (previously Orsem)
                                                                          the trade mark or sign
Furthermore, the applicant is claiming that the Commission
                                                                          asserted by way of oppo-
committed errors of assessment and infringed essential formal
                                                                          sition in the opposition
requirements. It infringed the duty to provide a statement of
                                                                          proceedings:
reasons and the Federal Government’s right to be heard.
Finally, the Commission misused its discretion in adopting the            Trade mark or sign             National and international word
contested decision and infringed the right to administration in           asserted by way of oppo-       mark ‘Aportex’ in respect of cer-
accordance with the rules.                                                sition in the opposition       tain goods in Class 5 (pharmaceu-
                                                                          proceedings:                   tical products for the prevention
                                                                                and/or treatment of the meno-
(1) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring                                     pause)
    firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of entire opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division


title: Case C-355/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — Schering Plough SpA v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — Schering Plough SpA v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   (Case C-355/07)
   (2007/C 247/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schering Plough SpA

      Defendants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case F-85/10: Action brought on 23 September 2010 — AI v Court of Justice

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/39

         Action brought on 23 September 2010 — AI v Court of Justice
   (Case F-85/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AI (represented by: M. Erniquin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the deliberations of the Selection Board concerning the results of the French test in internal competition on the basis of tests No CJ 12/09 and, to the extent necessary, annulment of the contracts and appointments of the persons who passed that competition and, second, annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract, and application for compensation for damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the deliberations of the Selection Board relating to the French test in internal competition on the basis of tests No CJ 12/09;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annulment of the appointments of the 8 candidates who passed that test;

               —

               communication of the assessment criteria on the basis of which the selection was made;

               —

               principally, reclassification of the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract as a contract for an indefinite period, and therefore annulment of the decision not to renew her temporary staff contract of January 2009, and, consequently, her reinstatement as a member of the temporary staff; in the alternative, annulment of the decision not to renew her temporary staff contract of January 2009, and, therefore, her reinstatement as a member of the temporary staff;

               —

               consequently, recognition of the entitlement to compensation corresponding to the difference between the remuneration which she would have received had the contract in question continued on 1 January 2010 and the emoluments which she in fact received as from that date until the date of her actual reinstatement;

               —

               payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered in particular as a result of the wrongful failure to renew her contract of employment, assessed at EUR 100 000 should the applicant’s reinstatement be ordered, or alternatively compensation of EUR 500 000 should it prove impossible to reinstate the applicant;

               —

               an order that the Court of Justice should pay the costs.


title: Case T-481/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014  — Spain v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables sector — Citrus fruits — Action for annulment — Confirmatory measure — New and substantial facts — Admissibility — Conditions for marketing — Provisions concerning marking — Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing — Standard recommendations adopted by the United Nations-Economic Commission for Europe)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-481/11) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetables sector - Citrus fruits - Action for annulment - Confirmatory measure - New and substantial facts - Admissibility - Conditions for marketing - Provisions concerning marking - Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing - Standard recommendations adopted by the United Nations-Economic Commission for Europe))
   (2015/C 007/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martin, B. Schima and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the fifth indent of section VI D, Part B 2 of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 275, 15.11.2003

text:
C 289/38        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         29.11.2003
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 289/73)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 275, 15.11.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 264, 1.11.2003
         OJ C 251, 18.10.2003
         OJ C 239, 4.10.2003
         OJ C 226, 20.9.2003
         OJ C 213, 6.9.2003
         OJ C 200, 23.8.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-301/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2008 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of footwear with a protective toecap originating in the People's Republic of China and India — Commission Decision closing the anti-dumping proceeding — Not individually concerned — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2008 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
   (Case T-301/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of footwear with a protective toecap originating in the People's Republic of China and India - Commission Decision closing the anti-dumping proceeding - Not individually concerned - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 6/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lemaître Sécurité SAS (La Walck, France) (represented by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Giolito, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Associazione nazionale calzaturifici italiani (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision No 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and India (OJ 2006 L 234, p. 33)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Lemaître Sécurité SAS shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Associazione nazionale calzaturifici italiani shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-99/07 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05, Genette v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/34

         Appeal brought on 29 March 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05, Genette v Commission
   (Case T-99/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Emmanuel Genette, Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05;

               —

               a declaration that the action is inadmissible;

               —

               a decision that each of the parties is to bear its own costs in these proceedings and those brought before the Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05 Genette v Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) upheld the action brought by Mr Genette for the annulment of the Commission decision of 25 January 2005 denying him, first, authorisation to withdraw the application for the transfer of his pension rights acquired in Belgian pension schemes, which he submitted in 2001, and, secondly, authorisation to apply for a fresh transfer of his pension rights.
   In its appeal, the Commission first raises the issue of the admissibility of the initial action. It submits that the Court of First Instance ruled ultra petita, by changing the subject-matter of the dispute, and that it made errors of assessment in its examination of the alleged new facts on which the applicant at first instance relied in order to justify the time-limits being re-opened for its benefit. The Commission maintains that, if the CST had correctly assessed both the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined in the application at first instance and the alleged new facts relied on by the applicant, it would have been bound to declare the action inadmissible. The Commission therefore claims that the CST exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and that it also infringed its rights of defence, since it ruled on several issues without allowing the Commission to submit its arguments.
   In support of its appeal in respect of the assessment of the substance of the case made by the CST in the judgment under appeal, the Commission puts forward several pleas alleging the CST's infringement of various provisions of Community law, in particular of the Staff Regulations, and principles of case-law, in so far as the judgment under appeal allows, in its opinion, the withdrawal of legal measures and, in the alternative, infringes the Commission's independent right not to withdraw contested decisions.


title: Case C-17/09: Judgment of the Court (Forth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Public service contracts — Bio-waste and green waste disposal service — Award without an open public tender procedure)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/9

         Judgment of the Court (Forth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-17/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Bio-waste and green waste disposal service - Award without an open public tender procedure)
   2010/C 179/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 8 in conjunction with Titles III to VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Failure to organise a formal European award procedure before the conclusion of a contract for bio-waste and green waste disposal services between the city of Bonn and a private company

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 and Titles III to VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, on the grounds that the municipality of Bonn and the Müllverwertungsanlage Bonn GmbH awarded a public service contract on the disposal of bio-waste and green waste without carrying out a procedure for the award of public works including Europe-wide tendering.

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 21.03.2009


title: Case F-74/08: Action brought on 29 August 2008 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/52

         Action brought on 29 August 2008 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission
   (Case F-74/08)
   (2008/C 272/101)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Dominique Ramaekers-Jørgensen (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   On the one hand, annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to calculate the applicant's Community tax by combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor's pension, and of the decision rejecting the application for the Community tax on her survivor's pension not to be deducted in advance, prior to payment of that pension, from her remuneration. On the other, a finding that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 20 May 2008 rejecting the claim brought on 16 January 2008 seeking annulment in part of the decision of 16 October 2007 insofar as that decision laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant;

               —

               insofar as necessary, annul in addition, in part, the decision of 16 October 2007 in as much as it laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant;

               —

               by application of Article 241 of the Treaty, find that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful since those provisions stipulate that the survivor's pension awarded to an official is to be added to his pay for the purposes of calculation of the Community tax thereon;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-188/16: Action brought on 26 April 2016 — repowermap v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/29

         Action brought on 26 April 2016 — repowermap v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)
   (Case T-188/16)
   (2016/C 222/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘REPOWER’ — International registration No 1 020 351

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the trade mark at issue invalid for all of the services and goods not declared invalid by the contested decision, with the exception of the packaging and storage of goods (Class 39); travel arrangement (Class 39); fire-extinguishing apparatus (Class 9);

               —

               order EUIPO and Repower AG to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-39/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Dĳon (First Chamber) by order of that Court of 30 December 2003 in the case of SA Laboratoires Fournier against Direction des Vérifications nationales et internationales

text:
C 71/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 30 January 2004 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admi-
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     nistratif de Dijon (First Chamber) by order of that Court
                            Netherlands                                    of 30 December 2003 in the case of SA Laboratoires
                                                                           Fournier against Direction des Vérifications nationales et
                                                                                internationales
                          (Case C-38/04)
                                                                                (Case C-39/04)
                          (2004/C 71/26)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/27)
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    European Communities by order of the Tribunal Administratif
on 30 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                       de Dijon (First Chamber) of 30 December 2003, received at
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, acting as Agent.                  the Court Registry on 2 February 2004, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of SA Laboratoires Fournier against Direction
                                                                           des Vérifications nationales et internationales on the following
                                                                           questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    Are the provisions mentioned in Article 244(c)B of the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                   Code général des impôts and in Article 49(g)H of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    Annex III to the said code, in so far as they restrict the
      Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of                    benefit of the tax credit for research to research activities
      the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approxi-                        performed in France, contrary to the provisions of
      mation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                   Article 49 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
      visions of the Member States relating to the classification,              the European Economic Community?
      packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (1) and
      Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001                     —    If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the
      adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of                    condition that the research activities be performed in
      the European Parliament and of the Council concerning                     France laid down by those tax provisions partaking of the
      the approximation of the laws, regulations and adminis-                   principle of coherence of corporation tax and thus
      trative provisions of the Member States relating to                       allowing restriction of the requirements of Article 49 of
      the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous                  the Treaty?
      preparations (2), or, in any event, by failing to notify the
      Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
      directives;
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-47/04)
The period prescribed for implementation of Directives 1999/
45/EC and 2001/60/EC expired on 30 July 2002.                                                       (2004/C 71/28)
(1) OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2001 L 226, p. 5.                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February
                                                                           2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Bordes and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.