title: Case T-288/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/35

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-288/05)
   (2005/C 229/75)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               grant the cancellation of the grading given in the recruitment decision dated 11 November 2004 of the Appointing Authority to grade the applicant on his recruitment to DG Competition as junior lawyer at grade A*6, step 2, implying the reinstatement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of 16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3 grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*8/3);

               —

               grant the award of damages ‘intérêts de retard’, compensation for his prejudice to his career, and other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of EUR 10 000 per year;

               —

               order that the Commission pays all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant participated in competition PE/96/A published on 23 May 2002. He succeeded the competition and was put on the reserve list on 27 May 2004. During this period, the applicant had started working for the Commission, first as temporary agent in grade A7, then as auxiliary agent in grade B. Following the competition, the applicant was recruited by the European Parliament with effect from 16 November 2004 and transferred to the Commission. The applicant was then graded in grade A*6.
   The applicant states that he seeks equal treatment compared to officials recruited between June 2003 and end of April 2004. In support of his application, the applicant invokes the illegality of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the revised Staff Regulations. According to the applicant, that article violates the principle of equal treatment and of non discrimination, Article 31 of the revised Staff Regulations, Article 5 of the revised Staff Regulations together with the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination, the principle of equivalence of position and grades, Article 7 (1) of the Staff Regulations and Annex IA to the Staff Regulations, as well as, finally, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of non retroactivity and the applicant's acquired rights and his legitimate expectation. The applicant furthermore submits that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) infringes Article 10 of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of good administration, the principle of due care, the principle of transparency, the principle of good faith and the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination.

      (1)  OJ L 124, p. 1


title: Case T-422/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Viscas v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/33

         Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Viscas v Commission
   (Case T-422/14)
   2014/C 303/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viscas Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it finds an infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009;

               —

               annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First and second pleas in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the applicant was part of the infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009.

               2.

               Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging that Commission’s application of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (1) violates the principles of proportionality and equal protection because i) it disproportionately benefits European producers of power cables and ii) it fails to recognize significant differences in the weight in the infringement for different producers.

               3.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by allocating sales by the applicant’s shareholders to the applicant for purposes of determining the fine to be imposed.

               4.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly increased the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into account based on the combined market share of the parties.

               5.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by failing to apply a reduction for mitigating circumstances.

               6.

               Eighth plea in law by which the applicant calls on the Court to rely on its unlimited jurisdiction and significantly reduce the fine.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-467/04: Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/19

         Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-467/04)
   (2005/C 69/36)
   Language in which the application was submitted: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami, residing in Milan (Italy), represented by Paolo Guido Beduschi and Silvia Giudici, lawyers.
   The Stilton Cheese Makers Association was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               establish that the letter of 4 June 2004, sent to the Office and signed jointly does not contain a statement intended to bring an end to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, but is only an application for a stay of proceedings;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 September 2004 in Case R 982/2002-2 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘GERONIMO STILTON’ for goods and/or services in Class 16 (books etc.), Class 25 (clothing etc.), Class 28 (games etc.), Class 29 (meat etc.), Class 30 (cake dough etc.) and Class 41 (services rendered in the field of education etc.) – Application No 1345503

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The Stilton Cheese Makers Association

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National word mark ‘STILTON’; registered designations of origin WHITE STILTON CHEESE and BLUE STILTON CHEESE

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition allowed for Classes 29 and 30

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               The Board of Appeal held that as a result of amendments to the specification of the relevant goods in accordance with a joint letter from the parties of 4 June 2004, the opposition had been withdrawn and the proceedings had therefore been terminated. Since according to the Board of Appeal the only question to be decided was the allocation of costs, each party was ordered to bear the fees and expenses of the opposition and appeal proceedings which it had itself incurred.

               Pleas in law:

               The pleas relied on are identical to those put forward in Case T-466/04 brought by the same applicant.


title: Case T-62/02: Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 131/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         1.6.2002
Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS against                    —     that the Commission incorrectly calculated the fine and
       the Commission of the European Communities                              incorrectly applied the Guidelines on the method of
                                                                               setting fines. On this point, the applicant states that the
                                                                               fine was increased on the basis of the duration of the
                           (Case T-62/02)                                      infringement and because of the fact that the Commission
                                                                               did not differentiate between the members of the cartel
                          (2002/C 131/38)                                      in an appropriate manner. Moreover, the Commission
                                                                               has not taken into account that the applicant was invited
                                                                               to join a cartel that already existed, and that it never was
                   (Language of the case: English)                             part of the ‘inner circle’, nor has the Commission taken
                                                                               into account that Waardals implemented the agreements
                                                                               in question only to a very slight degree. In setting the
                                                                               fines, the defendant consequently infringed the principles
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      of equal treatment and proportionality and misapplied
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the Guidelines mentioned above.
European Communities on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS,
represented by Mr Trygve Olavson Laake and Mr Jan Magne
Langseth of Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Stavanger (Norway).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
      applicant, or, in the alternative, reduce the duration of
      the infringement in so far as it concerns the applicant;           Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta
                                                                         Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni against European Central Bank
—     annul the fine imposed upon the applicant by Article 3(f)
      of the Decision, or, in the alternative, substantially reduce
      the amount of the fine imposed;                                                              (Case T-63/02)
—     grant its request for measures of organisation of pro-
      cedure including the summoning and hearing of witnesses                                     (2002/C 131/39)
      and access to the Commission’s report from the Hearing;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo
The Decision which is challenged in this case is the same as             Poloni, of Frankfurt am Main, represented by Boris Karthaus,
that in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals -v-                    Christian Roth and Tanja Raab-Rhein, lawyers, with an address
Commission. The grounds and main arguments are similar to                for service in Luxembourg.
those raised in that case.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
In particular, the applicant submits:
                                                                         1.    Annul the statements of earnings issued to the applicants
—     that the Commission has based its calculation of the fine                for the month of July 2001;
      on an incorrect assessment of the evidence and facts of
      the case. Firstly, the Commission found that all addressees
      of the Decision committed an infringement of the                   2.    Order the defendant to issue the applicants with state-
      same duration, 4 years and 1 month. In so doing, the                     ments of earnings on the basis of an annual salary
      Commission should have not taken into account that                       adjustment of at least 2,7 % in the month of July 2001;
      Waardals’ infringement ceased between April 1995 and
      August 1995. The defendant should have ignored the
      fact that the applicant withdrew from the cartel and               3.    In the alternative, order the defendant to issue the
      terminated its infringements immediately following the                   applicants with statements of earnings in accordance with
      investigations.                                                          the view of the law taken by the Court;


title: Case C-94/11: Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Survival Godwin

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Survival Godwin
   (Case C-94/11) (1)

   2011/C 252/68
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-32/98)

text:
C 113/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with          Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid                 against the Council of the European Union
     was paid,                                                                             (Case T-33/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/45)
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
relied on Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia v.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
Commission (1).
                                                                   4, boulevard Royal.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                       97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Netherlands              Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
Antilles against the Commission of the European                        97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
                          Communities
                        (Case T-32/98)                             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (98/C 113/44)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   Following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee
                                                                   of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Union, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  investigation in respect of imports into the Community of
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
1998 by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F.          originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and
Bos and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an              the Slovak Republic. At the same time, the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               announced the initiation of an interim review of Council
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 in respect of imports of
                                                                   certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
                                                                   originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Croatia. The anti-dumping proceeding so initiated
                                                                   followed the normal course and on its conclusion the
                                                                   Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2532/97 of                   17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping
     27 November 1997 introducing specific measures in             duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of
     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas        iron and non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
     countries and territories (1),                                Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak
                                                                   Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and
                                                                   terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.               originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under Romanian
                                                                   law, challenges the abovementioned Regulation, on the
                                                                   grounds that the Community institutions:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
those in Case T-163/97 (2) and T-179/97 (3).
                                                                   Ð have acted in breach of Article 22 of the basic
                                                                       anti-dumping Regulation (hereinafter the Basic
(1) OJ L 326, 28.11.1997, p. 21.
(2) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 31.
                                                                       Regulation') and also Article 34 of the Association
(3) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, p. 25.                                        Agreement with Romania, by imposing anti-dumping
                                                                       duties without referring the matter to the Association
                                                                       Council, and the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                       contested Regulation is inadequate in this respect,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 October 1997 in Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Decision not to promote - Consideration of comparative merits - Leave on grounds of sickness and accident - Account taken of the work actually done during the reference period)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/13
          Removal from the register of C-92/97 (1)                  removal from the register of Case C-121/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/40)                               of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany.
By order of 11 November 1997, the President of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities has                    (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-92/97:
Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
Belgium.
(1) OJ C 108, 5. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-154/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/43)
                                                                    By order of 8 October 1997, the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-96/97 ( ) 1                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-154/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/41)
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of           (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-96/97: Commission of
the European Communities v. French Republic.
(1) OJ C 131, 26. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-201/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/44)
                                                                    By order of 21 October 1997, the President of the Court
         Removal from the register of C-121/97 (1)                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                          (98/C 7/42)                               removal from the register of Case C-201/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against
                                                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: Martin Bauer and
                      of 21 October 1997                            TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of a
                                                                    decision not to promote Ð the Court of First Instance
in Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis v. Council of the
                                                                    (Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                      European Union (1)
                                                                    C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
                                                                    a judgment on 21 October 1997, the operative part of
(Officials Ð Decision not to promote Ð Consideration of
                                                                    which is as follows:
comparative merits Ð Leave on grounds of sickness and
accident Ð Account taken of the work actually done
                 during the reference period)
                          (98/C 7/45)                               1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                    2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.
In Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis, represented by Jean-
NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseur and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at


title: Case T-152/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Megasol Energie v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan — Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Megasol Energie v Commission
   (Case T-152/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan - Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 269/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Megasol Energie AG (Wangen an der Aare, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Wegner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, A. Demeneix and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not (OJ 2016 L 37, p. 56), and of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/185 of 11 February 2016 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not (OJ 2016 L 37, p. 76), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Megasol Energie AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-178/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member to fulfil obligations — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Capital duty — Exhaustive harmonisation — National legislation providing for taxation of any transfer of the effective centre of management or registered office, in so far as the company concerned is not subject to capital duty in the Member State of origin — National legislation under which agricultural cooperative organisations, and associations or consortia thereof of any kind, are exempted from the tax — National legislation under which co-ownership of vessels, shipping consortia and any form of shipping company are exempted from the tax — Prevention of tax avoidance — Abuse of rights — Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-178/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member to fulfil obligations - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital duty - Exhaustive harmonisation - National legislation providing for taxation of any transfer of the effective centre of management or registered office, in so far as the company concerned is not subject to capital duty in the Member State of origin - National legislation under which agricultural cooperative organisations, and associations or consortia thereof of any kind, are exempted from the tax - National legislation under which co-ownership of vessels, shipping consortia and any form of shipping company are exempted from the tax - Prevention of tax avoidance - Abuse of rights - Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment)
   (2007/C 170/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Khala and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Diaz Abad, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Transfer of a company's effective centre of management or registered office — Exemption from capital duty for agricultural cooperatives and shipping companies
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, as a result of its legislation relating to the charging of capital duty in the event of transfer of the registered office or the effective centre of management of a company and to the exemption from that duty of co-ownership of vessels, shipping consortia and any form of shipping company, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 June 1998 in Case T-135/96: Union Européenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v Council of the European Union (Agreement on social policy - Annulment of a directive - Whether action admissible - Status of management and labour in the process for the adoption of the directive - Representativity of management and labour)

text:
C 258/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.8.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      (Second Chamber)                                                     of 17 June 1998
                                                                    in Case T-135/96: Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisanat et des
                        of 7 July 1998
                                                                    Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v Council of
in Joined Cases T-116/96, T-212/96 and T-215/96: Italo                                 the European Union (1)
Telchini and Others v Commission of the European                    (Agreement on social policy Ð Annulment of a directive
                       Communities (1)                              Ð Whether action admissible Ð Status of management
                                                                    and labour in the process for the adoption of the directive
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Determination Ð
          Exchange rate Ð Retroactive adjustment)                          Ð Representativity of management and labour)
                                                                                (98/C 258/55)
                        (98/C 258/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    In Case T-135/96: Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisanat et des
                                                                    Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME), established in
                                                                    Brussels, represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel
In Joined Cases T-116/96, T-212/96 and T-215/96: Italo              Tomasevic, of the Brussels Bar, and GenevieÁve Tuts, of the
Telchini, former official of the Commission of the                  LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
European Communities, residing in Bolzano (Italy),                  the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde,
represented by Bruno Telchini, of the Bolzano Bar, with an          supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Petites et
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel (CGPME),
Becker & Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, Enrico Palermo,                   established in Puteaux (France), Union Professionelle
former official of the Commission of the European                   Artisanale (UPA), established in Paris, Nationaal
Communities, residing at Rome, Fabrizio Gillet, former              Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), established in
official of the Commission of the European Communities,             Brussels,    Koninklijke     Vereniging MKB-Netherland,
residing at Rome, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,               established in Delft (Netherlands), FeÂdeÂration des Artisans,
advocate with the right of audience before the Corte                established in Luxembourg, Confederazione Generale
Suprema di Cassazione, with an address for service in               Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato), established in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8-10 Rue                Rome, Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, established in
Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European                   Vienna, Bundesvereinigung der Fachverbände des
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by               Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), established in Bonn
Council of the European Communities (Agents: in Case                (Germany), represented by Paul Beghin, of the
T-116/96, Diego Canga Fano, Marco-Umberto Moricca                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at his
and Paolo Martino Cossu and, in Cases T-212/96 and                  Chambers, 67 Rue Ermesinde v Council of the European
T-215/96, Martin Bauer and Paolo Martino Cossu) Ð                   Union (Agent: FreÂdeÂric Anton), supported by the
first, application for annulment of the applicants' pension         Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Maria
statements in respect of the period from 1 July 1995 to             Patakia) Ð application for annulment of Council Directive
31 December 1995 inclusive, in so far as they apply with            96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on
retroactive effect the weighting fixed for Italy at 81.7 by         parental leave concluded by the Union des ConfeÂdeÂrations
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 of                de l'Industrie et des Employeurs d'Europe (UNICE), the
18 December 1995 adjusting the remuneration of pensions             Centre EuropeÂen de l'Entreprise Publique (CEEP) and the
of officials and other servants of the European                     ConfeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Syndicats (ETUC) (OJ
Communities and the weightings applied thereto (OJ L 310            L 145 of 19.6.1996, p. 4) Ð the Court of First Instance
of 22.12.1995, p. 1) and, secondly, applications for                (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P.
adjustment of the statements in question and a claim in             Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D.
damages Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),             Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy             the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a                  it:
judgment on 7 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                    1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
1. Dismisses the actions.
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant and the parties which have
                                                                         intervened in support of the form of order sought by it
                                                                         to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996 and C 94 of 22.3.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.


title: Case C-616/12 P: Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Time-limit for instituting proceedings)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/4

         Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-616/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time-limit for instituting proceedings)
   2013/C 377/06
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellants: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (represented by: K Chrysogonos and A. Kaidatzis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and Hoern v Commission, in which the General Court declared an action for the annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010, accepting the undertakings offered by Greece in exchange for measures required by the Commission in its decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008, declaring aid granted by the Greek authorities to Ellinika Nafpigeia (Hellenic Shipyards, ‘HSY’), to be incompatible with the common market, in the context of amendments to the initial investment plan relating to the restructuring of that shipyard (State aid C 16/2004 (ex NN29/2004, CP 71/2002 et CP 133/2005)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v. Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the market in raw tobacco - Management by the Commission - Action for compensation - Time bar - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment)

text:
20.2.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 55/23
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
                    of 17 December 1997                            VeÂronique Leclerq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
in Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v.                Myson Sarl, 30 rue de Cessange, against Commission of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia
(Common organisation of the market in raw tobacco Ð                and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for the
Management by the Commission Ð Action for                          annulment of decisions of the Selection Board in internal
compensation Ð Time bar Ð Principle of proportionality             competition COM/B/9/93, awarding to the applicants, at
               Ð Principle of equal treatment)                     the oral tests in that competition, a mark below the
                                                                   minimum required by the notice of competition and
                        (98/C 55/46)                               therefore refusing to include their names on the list of
                                                                   eligible candidates Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                (Language of the case: French)                     Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
                                                                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, administrator, for the
In Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc.,                  Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 December 1997, the
established in Kavala (Greece), represented by Edouard             operative part of which is as follows:
Didier and JoeÈl GrangeÂ, of the Paris Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed.
Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð
application for an order requiring the Commission to pay           2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty as
compensation for the damage resulting from certain action          (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
taken by it in managing the common organisation of the
market in raw tobacco in the period 1990 to 1991 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 17 December 1997, in which it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. dismisses the application;                                                          of 17 December 1997
                                                                         in Case T-110/96: Dominique-FrancËois Bareth v.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                          Committee of the Regions (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Internal competition Ð Refusal to appoint a
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                   successful candidate Ð Misuse of power Ð Principle of
                                                                          equal treatment Ð Obligation to state reasons)
                                                                                (98/C 55/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 17 December 1997
                                                                   In Case T-110/96: Dominique-FrancËois Bareth, an official
       in Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and Others v.
                                                                   of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   Union, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
(Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from             Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
Category C to Category B Ð Decision of the Board failing           Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
candidates at the oral test Ð Consistency between                  Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 rue de Cessange, against
complaint and application Ð Principle of equal treatment           Committee of the Regions (Agent: Dominique Lagasse) Ð
for men and women Ð Principle of non-discrimination Ð              application for the annulment of the decision of the
Scope of the obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment of           Committee of the Regions of 20 September 1995
                          the Board)                               inasmuch as it refuses to appoint the applicant to one of
                                                                   the vacant posts referred to in the notice of internal
                        (98/C 55/47)
                                                                   competition A/02/95 and appoints other successful
                                                                   candidates to those posts Ð the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                     (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
                                                                   Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
In Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and 29 other applicants,           for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 December 1997,
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,           the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-91/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-91/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 19/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-91/04: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 25 February 2004, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and K. Simonsson) and Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, failing to take the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-385/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Single and continuous infringement — Participation in the infringement)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission
   (Case T-385/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement)
   2011/C 145/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Aalberts Industries NV (Utrecht, Netherlands); Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS (La Chapelle-Saint-Mesmin, France); and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Argenbühl-Eisenharz, Germany) (represented initially by R. Wesseling and M. van der Woude, and subsequently by R. Wesseling, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG participated in the infringement during the period from 25 June 2003 to 1 April 2004;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(a) and (b)(2) of Decision C(2006) 4180;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Information note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling — Supplement following the implementation of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure applicable to references concerning the area of freedom, security and justice

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/1

      INFORMATION NOTE

   on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling

      SUPPLEMENT

   following the implementation of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure applicable to references concerning the area of freedom, security and justice
   (2008/C 64/01)

               1.

               This note is supplementary to the existing information note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling (1), and provides practical information on the new urgent preliminary ruling procedure applicable to references concerning the area of freedom, security and justice. The procedure is governed by Article 23a of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 104b of its Rules of Procedure (2).

               2.

               This information is intended to assist national courts proposing to request the application of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, and to facilitate the Court's handling of that request. In common with the existing information note, it is in no way binding.

         Conditions for the application of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure

               3.

               The urgent preliminary ruling procedure is applicable only in the areas covered by Title VI (Articles 29 to 42) of the Treaty on European Union concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and Title IV (Articles 61 to 69) of Part Three of the EC Treaty concerning visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons, including judicial cooperation in civil matters.

               4.

               Although a reference for a preliminary ruling generally calls for the national proceedings to be stayed until the Court has given its ruling, the referring court may still order protective measures to safeguard the interests of the parties pending the judgment of the Court, particularly as regards a national administrative measure based on a Community act which is the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity.

               5.

               The Court decides whether the urgent procedure is to be applied. Such a decision is generally taken only on a reasoned request from the referring court. Exceptionally, the Court may decide of its own motion to deal with a reference under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, where that appears to be required.

               6.

               The urgent procedure simplifies the various stages of the proceedings before the Court, but its application entails significant constraints for the Court and for the parties and other interested persons participating in the procedure, particularly the Member States.

               7.

               It should therefore be requested only where it is absolutely necessary for the Court to give its ruling on the reference as quickly as possible. Although it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of such situations, particularly because of the varied and evolving nature of Community rules governing the area of freedom, security and justice, a national court or tribunal might, for example, consider submitting a request for the urgent procedure to be applied in the following situations: in the case of a person detained or deprived of his liberty, where the answer to the question raised is decisive as to the assessment of that person's legal situation or, in proceedings concerning parental authority or custody of children, where the identity of the court having jurisdiction under Community law depends on the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling.

         The request for application of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure

               8.

               To enable the Court to decide quickly whether the urgent preliminary ruling procedure should be applied, the request must set out the matters of fact and law which establish the urgency and, in particular, the risks involved in following the normal preliminary ruling procedure.

               9.

               In so far as it is able to do so, the referring court should briefly state its view on the answer to be given to the question(s) referred. Such a statement makes it easier for the parties and other interested persons participating in the procedure to define their positions and facilitates the Court's decision, thereby contributing to the rapidity of the procedure.

               10.

               The request for the urgent preliminary ruling procedure must be submitted in a form that enables the Registry of the Court to establish immediately that the file must be dealt with in a particular way. Accordingly, the request should be submitted in a document separate from the order for reference itself, or in a covering letter expressly setting out the request.

               11.

               As regards the order for reference itself, it should be noted that relevant information is already contained in points 20 to 24 of the information note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling. It is particularly important in an urgent situation that the order for reference should be succinct, as it helps to ensure the rapidity of the procedure.

         Communication between the Court of Justice, the national court and the parties

               12.

               As regards communication with the national court or tribunal and the parties before it, national courts or tribunals which submit a request for an urgent preliminary ruling procedure are requested to state the e-mail address or any fax number which may be used by the Court, together with the e-mail addresses or any fax numbers of the representatives of the parties to the proceedings.

               13.

               A copy of the signed order for reference together with a request for the urgent preliminary ruling procedure can initially be sent to the Court by e-mail (ECJ-Registry@curia.europa.eu) or by fax (+352 43 37 66). Processing of the reference and of the request can then begin upon receipt of the e-mailed or faxed copy. The originals of those documents must, however, be sent to the Registry of the Court as soon as possible.

      (1)  See OJ 2005 C 143, pp. 1 to 4.

      (2)  See OJ 2008 L 24, pp. 39 to 43.


title: Case C-190/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles lodged on  21 April 2006  — Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles lodged on 21 April 2006 — Belgacom Mobile SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications
   (Case C-190/06)
   (2006/C 154/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgacom Mobile SA

      Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications
   Questions referred

               1

               Do individual rights of use for radio frequencies, as referred to in Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive), (1) include the exclusive right to use devices such as GSM devices or to authorise their use?

               2

               Must Article 7(3) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (2) be understood as meaning that it precludes a national measure making the use of SIM cards in GSM gateways subject to the prior permission of the mobile network operator concerned?

               3

               Does the concept of ‘access’ within the meaning of Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) (3) cover the provision to another undertaking of a SIM card where that SIM card is used by that undertaking in GSM gateway devices in order to provide third parties with services which make it possible to bypass interconnection points?

               4

               Where a national legal or administrative measure consists in requiring the prior permission of the operator of a public mobile telephony network which provides another undertaking with one or more SIM cards enabling the user of the SIM card to access the electronic communications services provided by that operator, and the SIM cards are used in devices which afford a technical means of accessing the operator's services without passing through interconnection points and without any need to obtain from that operator the provision of other resources and/or services, is that measure compatible with:

                           —

                           Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) which introduced a system of general authorisation for all electronic communications networks and services;

                           —

                           the [second] subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), (4) which provides that Member States are to ensure that, in carrying out their tasks, in particular those designed to ensure effective competition, national regulatory authorities take the utmost account of the desirability of making regulations technologically neutral;

                           —

                           the competition rules to which recital 7 in the preamble to Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) refers, in the sense that it would have the effect of linking the terms and conditions for access within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) to the activities of the party seeking access, and specifically to the degree of its investment in network infrastructure;

               5

               If it must be held that the use of GSM gateways for the commercial provision of electronic communications services requires the consent of the mobile operator concerned, must Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 97/33/EC (5) and Article 4 of Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) be interpreted as meaning that such use must be covered by an agreement between the parties concerned on the technical and commercial terms and conditions?

               6

               Must the obligation imposed on organisations notified as having significant market power to make their prices cost oriented, as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/33/EC and Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive), be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude an operator which is subject to it from setting its tariffs in such a way as to recover the investment costs for interconnection points on the ground that these were established taking account of the total volume of 'off-net' calls, including calls diverted through GSM gateways?

               7

               Must Article 10(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) and Article 7(6) of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) be interpreted as meaning that they allow Member States the discretion to provide that, where the national regulatory authority adopts urgent interim measures, those measures may apply only for a limited period fixed at two months?

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

      (2)  Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10).

      (3)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).

      (4)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (5)  Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32).


title: Case C-117/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 5 March 2012 — La Retoucherie de Manuela, S.L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos, S.C.

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 5 March 2012 — La Retoucherie de Manuela, S.L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos, S.C.
   (Case C-117/12)
   2012/C 151/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: La Retoucherie de Manuela, S.L.

      Defendant: La Retoucherie de Burgos, S.C.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the words ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’ used in Article 5(b) of [Commission] Regulation [(EC) No] 2790/1999 (1) be understood as meaning that they are limited to the place or physical space from which goods were sold or services provided while the agreement was in effect or can they apply to the entire territory in which the purchaser operated during the contract period?

               2.

               In the event that the Court rules in favour of the first interpretation, in the case of a franchise agreement which allocates a specific territory to the franchisee, can the words ‘premises and land’ refer to the territory in which the franchisee has operated during the contract period?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).


title: Case C-277/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 June 2014  — PPUH Stehcemp Sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 June 2014 — PPUH Stehcemp Sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-277/14)
   2014/C 303/21
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PPUH Stehcemp Sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Articles 2(1), 4(1) and (2), 5(1) and 10(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that a transaction conducted in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which neither the taxable person nor the tax authorities are in a position to establish the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, constitutes a supply of goods?

               2)

               If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Articles 17(2)(a), 18(1)(a) and 22(3) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, tax cannot be deducted by the taxable person since the invoice was issued by a person who was not the actual supplier of the goods and it is not possible to establish the identity of the actual supplier of the goods and to require that supplier to pay the tax, or to identify the person required to pay the tax on the basis of the issuance of the invoice pursuant to Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-144/12: Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Comsa v OHIM — COMSA (COMSA)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/20

         Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Comsa v OHIM — COMSA (COMSA)
   (Case T-144/12)
   2012/C 194/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Comsa, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Constructora de obras municipales, SA (COMSA) (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Uphold the action and declare that points 2, 3 and 5 of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 10 January 2012 in Joined Cases R 518/2011-2 and R 795/2011-2 are not consistent with Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation (EC) No 207/2009);

               —

               order the defendant and, where appropriate the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Constructora de obras municipales, SA (COMSA)

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘COMSA’ for goods and services in Classes 19, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 091 051

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Company name (business name) ‘COMSA S.A.’ and unregistered mark ‘COMSA’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeals of the applicant and of the defendant upheld in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 June 1998 in Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/33
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            SAS, established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire, Denkavit France
                       of 15 June 1998                               SARL, established at Montreuil-Bellay (France), Sobeval
                                                                     Viande SA, established at PeÂrigueux (France), Serval SA,
in Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v            established at Sainte-Eanne (France), Besnier Industrie
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                   SNC, established at Bourgbarre (France), Sovida SA,
                      (Taxation of costs)                            established at ChaÃteaubriand (France), Ouest EÂlevage
                                                                     SICA, established at Ploudaniel (France), Guinde SA,
                         (98/C 258/56)                               established at Montauban (France), Tarbouriech SA,
                                                                     established at Villeneuve-sur-Lot (France), Mamellor
               (Language of the case: French)                        SARL, established at Charnay-leÁs-MaÃcon (France),
                                                                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau (France),
                                                                     Collet et Compagnie SA, established at ChaÃteaubourg
In Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,             (France), KermeneÂ SA, established at Saint-Jacut-du-MeneÂ
established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the          (France), and Vals SA, established at Champagne (France),
Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              represented initially by Deborah Kryvian and subsequently
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v                          by Philippe Denesle, of the Rouen Bar, with an address for
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
initially, Jean-Paul Keppenne and, subsequently, Xavier              Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
Lewis), supported by CMF SpA and CMF Sud SpA,                        Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð application for
established at Pignatero Maggiore (Italy), represented by            annulment of Article 1(9) and (14) of Commission
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe                        Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, of
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with an address          Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/97 of 8 January 1997
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,               and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 200/97 of
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð application              31 January 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92
for taxation of costs made pursuant to the judgment                  laying down detailed rules for the application of premium
delivered by the Court of First Instance on 5 November               schemes in the beef and veal sector (respectively, OJ L 313
1997 in Case T-149/95 Ducros v Commission [1997]                     of 3.12.1996, p. 9, OJ L 5 of 9.1.1997, p. 17, and OJ L 31
ECR II-2031 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                     of 1.2.1997, p. 62) Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.                       Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-
Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura                Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                  made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative part of
Registrar, made an order on 15 June 1998, the operative              which is as follows:
part of which is as follows:
                                                                     1. The applications are dismissed as inadmissible.
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
applicant to the interveners in Case T-149/95, including             2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be
those incurred by the parties in the present proceedings,                 jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
shall be BFR 600 000.                                                     Commission.
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 June 1998
                       of 25 June 1998
                                                                     in Case T-24/97: CoopeÂrative des EÂleveurs de la VendeÂe,
in Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo                 de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP) and CoopeÂrative
SAS and Others v Commission of the European                          Agricole d'EÂleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB)v Council
                        Communities (1)                                                of the European Union (1)
(Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð                  (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium for                Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium
the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase                 for the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase
weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for                   weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for
                annulment Ð Inadmissibility)                                         annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
                         (98/C 258/57)                                                       (98/C 258/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case T-24/97: CoopeÂrative des EÂleveurs de la VendeÂe,
In Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo                 de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP), established at Saint-
SAS, established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire (France), Sofivo                 Laurent-sur-SeÁvre (France), and CoopeÂrative Agricole
Production SAS, established at BreÂceÂ (France), Sovinor             d'EÂleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB), established at


title: Case T-498/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/37

         Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-498/11)
   2011/C 347/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the offer submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure-Invitation to specific tender no. 10369 ‘Revamping of the OLAF website’ implementing Competitive Multiple Framework Service Contract no. 10224 lot 1, and related decisions of the Publications Office including the one to award the respective contract to a sucessful tenderer and selected contractor;

               —

               Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 31 977 EUR (euros) in damages;

               —

               In addition, order the Publications Office to pay the applicant 20 000 EUR (euros) in damages for the loss of opportunity and detriment to its reputation and credibility; and

               —

               Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with present application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the tender specifications, using the award criterion contrary to Article 97 of the Financial Regulation and 138 of the Implementing Rules; and

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, vague and unsubstantiated comments of the Evaluation Committee, modification of the award criteria included in the original call for tenders and not communicating to tenderers criteria introduced a posteriori in due time.


title: Case C-46/09: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 4 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 4 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-46/09) (1)

   2010/C 63/72

      Language of the case: Estonian

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-470/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Svidník — Slovakia) — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Miroslav Vašuta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer credit contract — Unfair terms — Directive 93/13/EEC — Enforcement of an arbitration award — Application for leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings — Consumer protection association — National legislation which does not allow such an intervention — Procedural autonomy of the Member States)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Svidník — Slovakia) — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Miroslav Vašuta
   (Case C-470/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer credit contract - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Enforcement of an arbitration award - Application for leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings - Consumer protection association - National legislation which does not allow such an intervention - Procedural autonomy of the Member States))
   2014/C 112/10
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Svidník

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pohotovosť s.r.o.

      Defendant: Miroslav Vašuta

      Intervening party: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Okresný súd vo Svidníku — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Consumer credit contract — Enforcement of an arbitration award — Application by a consumer protection association for leave to intervene in the enforcement procedure — National legislation not providing for the possibility for a third party to intervene — Possibility for the national court to allow that application for leave to intervene.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not allow a consumer protection association to intervene in support of a consumer in proceedings for enforcement, against the latter, of a final arbitration award.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-174/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna by order of that Court of 15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003 in the case of Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Operators s.r.l.

text:
C 213/6                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
2)     If so: if the State waives its claim to the portion of the          Appeal brought on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux NV
       fees due to it in respect of that legal transaction, thereby        against the judgment delivered on 25 February 2003 by
       ceasing to enforce the legal provision requiring a portion          the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/
       of the fees to be remitted to the State, do the fees cease to        00 Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union
       constitute a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335?
                                                                                (Case C-186/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/11)
                                                                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux
                                                                           NV, represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, with an
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                        address for service in Luxembourg, against the judgment
Amministrativo per la Sardegna by order of that Court of                   delivered on 25 February 2003 by the Court of First Instance
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003 in the case of                        (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/00 Strabag Benelux NV v
Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di                    Council of the European Union.
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Oper-
                              ators s.r.l.                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                          (Case C-174/03)                                        inasmuch as it dismissed the applications for annulment
                                                                                and compensation on the ground that they were
                                                                                unfounded;
                          (2003/C 213/10)
                                                                           —     uphold the forms of order sought by STRABAG in respect
                                                                                of those applications and accordingly:
                                                                                —     annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                 Council awarded to the DE WAELE company the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                             refitting and general maintenance work contract
tivo per la Sardegna (The Administrative Court for Sardinia) of                        which was the subject of invitation to tender
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003, received at the Court                            No 107865 published in the Official Journal of the
Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                             European Communities S 146 of 30 July 1999, and
case of Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di                        by which the Council implicitly rejected the tender
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Operators                                submitted by STRABAG;
s.r.l. on the following questions:
                                                                                —     order the Council of the European Union to pay to
                                                                                STRABAG, subject to any increase, the sum of
(a)    whether, in accordance with the recitals in the preamble                        BEF 153 421 286 or EUR 3 803 214 together with
       to Directive 93/38 (1), a company in the maritime trans-                        interest thereon at the rate of 6 % as from 12 April
       port sector, which in some cases operates under a de                            2000;
       facto monopoly and in others in circumstances of free
       competition and which benefits from State aid is to be              —     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
       regarded as always subject to the Directive 93/98,
       and, in the event that such a company is subject to the
       rules on public notice,                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(b)    whether the ‘technical specifications’ mentioned in                 In support of its application for annulment, the appellant puts
       Article 18 of Directive 93/38 (transposed by Article 19             forward four pleas in law.
       of Legislative Decree No 158/95) must be established
       prior to the procedure for selecting a contractor and               The first plea is divided into two limbs. The appellant first
       whether they are subject to any publicity requirements.             criticises the Court of First Instance for failing properly to
                                                                           construe the concepts of ‘contract’ and ‘decision’ in so far as it
                                                                           took the view that the contract which the Council concluded
( 1) Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the          with the successful tenderer constituted the decision to award
     procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,            the contract. Second, the appellant claims that the Court of
     energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 199 of         First Instance breached Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC
     09.08.1993, p. 84).                                                   concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts in so far as the Court took the view
                                                                           that the written report required under that provision could
                                                                           consist of three documents, that is to say, the report to the