title: Appeal brought on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-354/94 between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-286/98 P)

text:
C 299/16               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.9.98
Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö                       2.    incorrectly held that its own conclusion that the
Aktiebolag against the judgment delivered on 14 May                         Commission had failed to prove all the alleged effects
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the                     of the infringement could not materially affect its
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                      assessment of the gravity of the infringement and
Case T-352/94 (1) between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag                          thus could not lead to a reduction in the fine.
     and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-283/98 P)                             (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994, p. 8.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.
                          (98/C 299/26)                               (3) Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
                                                                          Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
                                                                          (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87).
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-352/94 between Mo och Domsjö Aktiebolag and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 July 1998 by Mo och Domsjö                          Appeal brought on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
Aktiebolag, whose registered address is at S-89180                    Bergslags AB against the judgment delivered on 14 May
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by Antony Woodgate                  1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
and Martin Smith, Solicitors, of Simmons & Simmons,                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Case T-354/94 (1) between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias                        AB and the Commission of the European Communities
Hardt.
                                                                                (Case C-286/98 P)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                                     (98/C 299/27)
(i)   annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
      14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 at least in part;                  1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
(ii) annul Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July                   Case T-354/94 between Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB
      1994 relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of             and the Commission of the European Communities, was
      the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) in so             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      far as it relates to the appellant at least in part;            Communities on 27 July 1998 by Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                      Bergslags AB, whose registered address is at S-79180
                                                                      Falun, Sweden, represented by Alexander Riesenkampff
(iii) cancel or at least reduce the amount of the fine                and Stefan Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, of Hasche Eschenlohr
      imposed on the Appellant;                                       Peltzer Riesenkampff Fischötter, Brussels, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz,
                                                                      Faltz & Kremer, 6, rue Heinrich Heine.
(iv) order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs
      before this Court and before the Court of First
      Instance.
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94 and annul
The appellant relies on grounds of appeal based on an                      Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
infringement of Community law in particular of                             relating to proceedings under Article 85(1) of the EC
Articles 85, 172, 173 and 190 of the EC Treaty and of                      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard (2)) because the
Council Regulation No 17 (3) and of the general principles                 Court of First Instance's conclusions were made on the
of Community law.                                                          basis of substantive errors of Community law which:
The appellant raises grounds of appeal including that the                  (i)   infringe Articles 85 and 15(2) of Council
Court of First Instance:                                                         Regulation No 17 (3) in that the appellant is held
                                                                                responsible for the conduct of its subsidiaries
                                                                                Kopparfors, Feldmühle and CBC without regard
1.    incorrectly held that the Commission's failure to set
                                                                                to the legal criteria developed by the European
      out in the decision the factors of which it had
                                                                                Courts and the Commission for the imputation
      systematically taken account when fixing the
                                                                                of infringements committed by subsidiaries;
      appellant's fine was not an infringement of the duty
      to state reasons such as would justify annulment in
      whole or in part of the decision and of the fine                     (ii)  infringe the rules regarding the burden of proof
      imposed;                                                                   in that, with respect to the imputation of the
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 299/17
           infringements committed by Kopparfors, the                     in the infringement and failed to adopt appropriate
           burden of proof is imposed on the appellant and,               measures in order to prevent the continuation of the
           with respect to Feldmühle and CBC, mere                        infringement;
           assumptions are relied on to the detriment of the
           appellant;
                                                                    (iii) held that the Commission's failure to set out in the
     (iii) violate the principle that punishment requires                 Decision the factors of which it had systematically
           fault in that, without any basis in the facts of the           taken account when fixing the appellant's fine was
           case, an assumption is made that the appellant                 not an infringement of the duty to state reasons such
           must have been aware of Feldmühle's and CBC's                  as would justify annulment in whole or in part of the
           participation in the cartel;                                   fine imposed,
     (iv) offend the laws of logic in that the appellant is         and, further and in the alternative, that it erred in law in
           held to be under an obligation to take measures          that it:
           against infringements committed by Feldmühle
           and CBC of which it was not even aware and
           without regard to the fact that the appellant,           (iv) held that its own conclusion that the Commission
           even if he had been aware thereof, did not have                had failed to prove all the alleged effects of the
           the power to implement such measures;                          infringement could not materially affect its
                                                                          assessment of the gravity of the infringement and
     (v)   infringe the rules regarding the burden    of proof            thus could not lead to a reduction in the fine.
           and the principle in dubio pro reo in      that the
           appellant is required to prove that it      did not      (1) Not yet published.
           continue the infringing conduct             of its       (2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.
           subsidiaries;                                            (3) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87.
     (vi) violate     essential   procedural     requirements
           pursuant to Articles 173 and 190 in that the fine
           imposed on the appellant is not annulled
           although it is acknowledged in the judgment that
           the criteria applied in calculating the individual
           amount of the fine should have been disclosed in         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
           the Decision.                                            d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg, by order of that court of
                                                                    15 July 1998 in the case of the State of the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg v. Linster and Others
Ð Alternatively, the fine imposed on Stora must be
     annulled or at least reduced because the Court of First                                 (Case C-287/98)
     Instance made on the basis substantive errors of                                          (98/C 299/28)
     Community law which:
     vii) violate Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 in that
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           the Commission's failure to fully prove the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Tribunal
           effects of the collusion on prices is held not to
                                                                    d'Arrondissement (District Court), Luxembourg, of 15 July
           materially affect the assessment of the gravity of
                                                                    1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 July
           the infringement.
                                                                    1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the State of
                                                                    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v. Linster and Others,
                                                                    on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    1. Must Articles 177 and 189 of the EC Treaty be
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in                interpreted as meaning that a court against whose
law in that it:                                                          decisions there is no judicial remedy under national
                                                                         law and which is called on to verify the legality of a
                                                                         procedure for the expropriation on grounds of public
(i)   held that infringements of Article 85 committed by
                                                                         utility of immovable property belonging to a private
      its subsidiary Kopparfors must be imputed to the
                                                                         individual may find that the assessment of the impact
      appellant without regard to the Commission's failure
                                                                         of the construction of a motorway required by
      to establish whether the appellant had exercised any
                                                                         Article 5(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
      influence on Kopparfors' commercial policy;
                                                                         27 June 1985 (1) on the assessment of the effects of
                                                                         certain public and private projects on the environment,
(ii) disregarded the relevant case-law when it held that                 being a project of the kind referred to in Article 4(1)
      infringements committed by Feldmühle and CBC                       thereof, has not been carried out and that the
      prior to and after their acquisition by the appellant              information obtained in accordance with Article 5 has
      must be imputed to the appellant because the                       not been made available to the public and that the
      appellant could not be unaware of their participation              members of the public concerned have not had an


title: Case C-395/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/2/EC — Environment policy — Infrastructure for Spatial Information — Exchange and update of data in electronic format — Failure to adopt national measures transposing the directive)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-395/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/2/EC - Environment policy - Infrastructure for Spatial Information - Exchange and update of data in electronic format - Failure to adopt national measures transposing the directive)
   2011/C 103/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and V. Peere, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.10.2010.


title: References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by orders of that court of 26 January 1995 and 16 February 1995 in the cases of 1. Olasagasti & Co. Srl, 2. Comarcon SNC, 3. Ghezzi Alimentari Srl, 4. Fredo Srl, and 5. Cateringros v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Cases C-47/95, C-48/95, C-49/95, C-50/95 and C-60/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/5
     exempt transfers of goods used wholly for an activity                 products listed in the Annex to Regulation (EEC)
     which is exempted, or goods which are in any event                    No 3835/90 (2)' also apply to imports from Spain of
     not deductible, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil             tuna in olive oil ?
     its obligations under Article 13B (c ) of Council
     Directive 77/388/EEC ( J ) of 17 May 1977 ( Sixth VAT           ( b ) May the competent customs authorities, pursuant to
     Directive).                                                           Article 5(1 ) and (2 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79
                                                                           of 24 July 1979, as supplemented by Regulation (EEC)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        No 1715/90 ( 3 ) of 20 June 1990, and Article 2 of
                                                                           implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2164/91 (4 ) of
As regards 'supplies of goods used wholly for an activity                  23 July 1991 , initiate action for the recovery of customs
exempted under this Article . . . when these goods have not                duties which were not collected at the time of
given rise to the right to deduction', Article 10 of                       importation because they were regarded as having been
Presidential Decree No 633 omits to list among                             totally suspended as a result of an erroneous
approximately 30 examples which it gives of 'transactions                  interpretation of the Cpmmunity legislation in force,
exempt from duty' the situation envisaged at the beginning                 but which subsequently proved to be due on the basis of
of Article 13B (c) of the Directive .                                      a different interpretation of the same Community
                                                                           legislation provided by the Commission of the EEC
Âs regards 'supplies . . . of goods on the acquisition or                  after consulting its Legal Service, where the person
production of which, by virtue of Article 17(6 ), value added              liable observed all the provisions laid down by the rules
                                                                           in force as far as his customs declaration was concerned
tax did not become deductible', the corresponding provision
of Presidential Decree No 633/72 (third paragraph of                       and it does not appear that that person was aware that
Article 2 ) provides that transactions involving the goods                 the interpretation initially given to the Community
referred to in Article 19 of that Decree, such as motor                    legislation by the Italian authorities was erroneous ?
vehicles and pleasure craft, 'are not considered to be
transfers of goods'. That specification precludes the                (!)  OJ  No L  324,  26 . 11 . 1991 , p. 11 .
application of VAT to transactions of that kind, and thus            (2 ) OJ  No L  370,  31 . 12. 1990, p. 126 .
likewise fails to implement Article 13B (cj of the Sixth VAT         (3 ) OJ  No L  160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
Directive correctly.                                                 (4 ) OJ  No L  201 , 24 . 7. 1991 , p . 16 .
(!) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
                                                                     Appeal brought on 28 February 1995 by Unifruit Hellas
                                                                     EPE against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1994
References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di             by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by orders of that court of             European Communities in Case T-489/93 between Unifruit
26 January 1995 and 16 February 1995 in the cases of                 Hellas EPE and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
1 . Olasagasti & Co. Sri, 2. Comarcon SNC, 3 . Ghezzi
Alimentari Sri, 4. Fredo Sri, and 5 . Cateringros v.                                           ( Case C-51/95 P
          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato                                                ( 95/C 119/11 )
      (Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 , C-49/95 , C-50/95 and
                             C-60/95 )                               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
                           (95/C 119/10 )                             1 994 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                     the European Communities in Case T-489/93 between
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Unifruit Hellas EPE and the Commission of the European
European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Genova, Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First           European Communities on 28 February 1995 by Unifruit
Civil Section) of 26 January 1995 and 16 February 1995 ,             Hellas EPE, established in Athens, represented by Elias
which were received at the Court Registry on 23 February             Souflero, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
1995 and 8 March 1 995, for preliminary rulings in the cases         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
                                                                     Rue .
of 1 . Olasagasti & Co. Sri, 2. Comarcon SNC, 3 . Ghezzi
Alimentari Sri, 4. Fredo Sri, and 5 . Cateringros v.
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato on the following           The appellant claims that the Court should:
questions:
                                                                      1 . déclaré the appeal admissible;
(a ) Does the suspension of the residual customs duties
       applicable to imports from Spain into the Community
       of Ten in accordance with Article 75 ( 1 ) of the Act of      2, set aside the judgment appealed against to the extent to
       Accession of that country which was provided for by                 which it rejected the claim for damages;
       Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 3416/91 O of
       25 November 1991 as regards 'the agricultural                  3 , award costs to the appellant.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark CELLTECH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 April 2005
   in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark CELLTECH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 155/31)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-260/03: Celltech R&D Ltd, established in Slough, Berkshire (United Kingdom), represented by D. Alexander, barrister, and N. Jenkins, solicitor, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and A. Folliard-Monguiral) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark CELLTECH, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2);

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.


title: Case C-289/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 June 2014  — Brit Air SA v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Brit Air SA v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-289/14)
   2014/C 261/24
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brit Air SA

      Defendant: Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a lump sum calculated as a percentage of the annual turnover received from routes operated as a franchise and paid onwards by an airline company which issued on behalf of another company tickets which are no longer valid constitutes non-taxable compensation paid to the latter, for the harm suffered as a result of the activation in vain by the latter of its means of transport or a sum corresponding to the proceeds from tickets issued and expired?

               2)

               In the event that that sum is deemed to correspond to the price of tickets issued and expired, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the issue of the ticket may be treated as the effective performance of the transport service and that the sums retained by an airline company where the holder of an air ticket has not used his ticket, which is no longer valid, are subject to value added tax?

               3)

               In that case, must the tax received be paid onwards to the Treasury by Air France or Brit Air on receipt of payment of the price, even though the travel may not have taken place as a result of the customer’s acts?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-380/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/37

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
   (Case T-380/14)
   2014/C 261/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they concern the applicant and, more specifically, order:

                           —

                           to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014;

                           —

                           to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014;

               —

               partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they do not conform to the Joint Proposal;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of this suit and award costs to the applicant.

      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 lack of competence of the Council and infringement of the natural judge’s competences as:

                           —

                           the adoption of the contested regulation violated the procedure laid down in Article 215(2) TFEU since the regulation expanded the scope of the restrictive measures compared to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission, which the regulation was based on;

                           —

                           the listing of the applicant lead to pillorying an individual who had not benefited from a due process and who had not been condemned by a competent court of law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging obvious errors in the appreciation of the facts. The applicant submits that no investigation was initiated against him in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and/or their illegal transfer outside Ukraine before or at the moment of the adoption of the contested measures. Moreover, the applicant alleges that even if the alleged investigation did exist, it would not have any factual or legal basis and would be exclusively politically motivated. Finally, the applicant claims that the reasons given by the Council for listing the applicant do not meet the conditions set by the contested measures and are not supported by any evidence.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the Council failed to provide the applicant with the individual and specific factual and legal reasons in violation of Article 296 TFUE;

                           —

                           the applicant was not given the right to make his views known to the Council;

                           —

                           the contested measures identify the applicant as being responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds in the absence of any judgment and any proof thereof, which constitutes a violation of the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty;

                           —

                           the applicant was not informed of any evidence adduced against him, thus making him unable to contest it before the Court, which constitutes a violation of his right to an effective legal remedy;

                           —

                           the appellant is directly deprived of his property rights;

                           —

                           the contested sanctions are disproportionate compared to the circumstances of the case and the available evidence, and

                           —

                           the way in which applicant is portrayed in the contested measures seriously harms his reputation.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2002 in Case C-174/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — First indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))

text:
C 19/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 December 2002
                       of 12 December 2002
                                                                            in Case C-174/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
in Case C-5/01: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
                                                                            management — First indent of Article 11(1) of Directive
                                                                            96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and
(ECSC Treaty — Aid granted by the Member States —                                        polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))
Annulment of Commission Decision 2001/198/ECSC of
15 November 2000 concerning State aid granted by Belgium
                                                                                (2003/C 19/11)
                      to Cockerill Sambre SA)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2003/C 19/10)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      In Case C-174/01, Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                           (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v Grand Duchy of
                                                                            Luxembourg (Agent: J. Falz): Application for a declaration that,
                                                                            by failing to draw up plans for the decontamination and/or
                                                                            disposal of inventoried equipment and the polychlorinated
                                                                            biphenyls contained therein, in accordance with the require-
                                                                            ments of Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 Sep-
                                                                            tember 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and
In Case C-5/01, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
                                                                            polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31),
assisted by L. Levi, G. Vandersanden and J.-M. de Backer,
                                                                            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
avocats) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                            obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
G. Rozet): Application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                            composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the
Decision 2001/198/ECSC of 15 November 2000 concerning
                                                                            Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr
State aid granted by Belgium to Cockerill Sambre SA (OJ 2001
                                                                            and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
L 71, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 Decem-
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
                                                                            ber 2002, in which it:
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December              1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up plans for the decontami-
2002, in which it:                                                                nation and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the
                                                                                polychlorinated biphenyls contained therein, in accordance with
                                                                                the requirements of the first indent of Article 11(1) of Council
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                  Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
                                                                                polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/
                                                                                PCT), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                             obligations under that directive;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.02.2001.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.


title: Case T-109/16: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark RESPIMER — Earlier EU word mark RESPIMAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/24

         Order of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER)
   (Case T-109/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark RESPIMER - Earlier EU word mark RESPIMAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 462/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire de la mer (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 (Case R 3109/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and Laboratoire de la mer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laboratoire de la mer to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 March 2003 in Case C-143/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora)

text:
10.5.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 112/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Declares that, in adopting a measure transposing Council
                                                                                Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                                natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which:
                         (Third Chamber)
                                                                                —     excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of
                         of 20 March 2003                                                the implications for the environment projects other than
                                                                                those listed in the Italian legislation implementing direc-
                                                                                tives on environmental impact assessment that are likely
in Case C-143/02: Commission of the European Communi-                                    to have a significant effect on sites of Community
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                         importance,
                                                                                —     fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                             Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild                                      respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration
                          fauna and flora)                                               of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or
                                                                                disturbance of the species for which the areas were
                                                                                designated, in so far as such disturbance could be
                          (2003/C 112/12)                                                significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/
                                                                                43,
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                —     fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to
                                                                                in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                   to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive;
In Case C-143/02, Commission of the European Communities                     2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agents: U. Leanza and M. Fiorilli): Application for a declar-
ation that, in adopting legislation transposing Council Direc-               (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
tive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7),
which:
—     excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of
      the implications for the environment projects other
      than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing
      directives on environmental impact assessment that are
      likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
      importance,                                                            icht Rostock by order of that Court of 5 February 2003 in
                                                                             the procurement review procedure 1. Simrad GmbH &
                                                                             Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against Ministry for
—     fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the
                                                                             Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
      Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in
                                                                                mern
      respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterio-
      ration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or
      disturbance of the species for which the areas were                                                (Case C-50/03)
      designated, in so far as such disturbance could be
      significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/
      43,                                                                                (2003/C 112/13)
—     fails to provide that the conservation measures referred
      to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites
      referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              Rostock (Higher Regional Court, Rostock) of 5 February 2003,
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive, the Court (Third Chamber),            received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     preliminary ruling in the procurement review procedure
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,                     1. Simrad GmbH & Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-
on 20 March 2003, in which it:                                               Vorpommern on the following questions:


14.9.2002              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 219/13
        Removal from the register of Case C-450/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-490/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/30)                                                       (2002/C 219/33)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 7 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-450/01: Commission of the European                register of Case C-490/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-451/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-16/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/31)                                                       (2002/C 219/34)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 26 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-451/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-16/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-453/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-17/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/32)                                                       (2002/C 219/35)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 18 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-453/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-17/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-454/03: Action brought on 28 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 289/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Action brought on 24 October 2003 by French Republic                       Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg
                           (Case C-449/03)
                                                                                (Case C-450/03)
                          (2003/C 289/35)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European               brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Communities on 24 October 2003 by the French Republic,                     ties on 27 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
represented by M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, acting as                Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to issue a permit for the operation
      of the waste tip situated within the limits of the munici-           1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      pality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni, the French Republic                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of                    Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste,                     the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (1);                                    biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not
                                                                                communicating those provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
2.    declare that, by refraining from taking the necessary                      obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
      measures to ensure that the waste on the abovementioned
      tip is treated or disposed of without endangering human              2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      health and without using processes or methods which
      might harm the environment, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council
      Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;
3.    declare that, by refraining from taking the necessary                The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
      measures to ensure that the operator of the abovemen-                expired on 30 July 2000.
      tioned tip itself treat or dispose of waste or have it
      handled by a private or public waste collector, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8        (1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
      of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
      waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;
4.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 October 2003 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The existence of a wild tipping site operated by the munici-                                       (Case C-454/03)
pality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni has resulted in a deterioration
of the environment during an extended period. The French
Republic has not taken steps to close down the illegal tip or to                                   (2003/C 289/37)
rehabilitate it. It has not taken measures to ensure that waste
is deposited in an authorised tip.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
(1) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           28 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003            EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 289/19
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-194/02 (1)
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                                     (2003/C 289/39)
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not         By order of 30 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      communicating those provisions to the Commission, the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          register of Case C-194/02: Commission of the European
      under Article 15 of that directive;                              Communities v Republic of Austria.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
expired on 30 July 2000.
(1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-226/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/40)
                         (2003/C 289/38)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice         By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/02: Commission of the European
                                                                       register of Case C-226/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                     the Østre Landsret): Remedan af 1985 ApS v Skatteministeriet.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case T-137/03: Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/25
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market                            Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini
Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Communities
                                                                                (Case T-137/03)
                           (Case T-135/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/46)
                           (2003/C 158/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2003 by Common Market
Fertilizers, a company established in Brussels, represented by
Alastair Sutton and Nathalie Flandin, lawyers.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     set aside the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                28 June 2002 not to appoint the applicant to the post of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       medical consultant to the ‘Brussels Medical Service’ Unit
                                                                                of DG Admin B8;
—      annul Commission Decision REM 03/02;
                                                                            —     set aside the express decision of 23 January 2003
                                                                                dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            —     set aside the appointment of another candidate to the
                                                                                post of medical consultant, which involved inter alia
                                                                                rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the vacant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   post;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 15 000 assessed ex æquo et bono as compensation
The applicant is a wholesaler of chemical products and in                         for non-material damage and the adverse effect on the
particular nitrogen solutions. It applied to the French customs                   applicant’s career;
authorities, under Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/
92 (1), for remission of customs duties in accordance with
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 (2). That appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
cation was forwarded by the French authorities to the defend-
ant who, by its contested decision, refused remission.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law
and arguments which are similar to those relied on by the
same applicant in Case T-134/03.                                            The applicant, who is a medical doctor, is an official working
                                                                            in the Commission’s medical service. In response to a notice
                                                                            of vacancy, she submitted her application for a post of medical
                                                                            consultant. The appointing authority did not select her and
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                 another candidate was appointed to that post.
     establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
     19.10.1992, p. 1).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
     imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea             The applicant takes the view that the appointing authority has
     ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,          breached Articles 14, 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regu-
     exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-             lations and has infringed the principles of legality, equal
     lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 350,           treatment of applicants, entitlement to pursue a career, equal
     31.12.1994, p. 20).                                                    opportunity, and equality as between men and women. In
                                                                            support of her claims, the applicant submits further that the
                                                                            appointing authority acted improperly during the appointment
                                                                            procedure and was guilty of a misuse of powers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
According to the applicant, the appointing authority commit-              The applicants submit that the defendants made a manifest
ted a manifest error of assessment in selecting a candidate who           error of assessment, misused their powers and violated the
did not satisfy the conditions set out in the notice of vacancy.          legitimate expectations of European consumers.
The appointment of that candidate should for that reason be
set aside. The applicant also asserts that there has been an
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the               The applicants maintain that the defendants made a manifest
rules governing the deliberations of the selection board. She             error of assessment in their management of the risks associated
claims that certain members of the selection board were                   with the BSE epidemic by not recommending a forward
not adequately qualified and/or lacked the impartiality and               scientific evaluation of the risk of BSE developing BSE in the
objectivity necessary for sitting on such a board. Furthermore,           various geographical areas of the Union at the time of
the staff reports of the applicant and of the candidate appointed         identification of the causes of the epidemic and of adoption of
evaluate their respective activities and profiles according to            the first protective measures in the United Kingdom. That
different criteria and provisions of the Staff Regulations. In            manifest error of assessment is also evidenced by the failure of
conclusion, the applicant submits that the appointing authority           the defendants to call for a retrospective study to shed light on
infringed the principle of equality as between men and women.             the cause of the infections subsequently recorded in France.
She argues that she was more meritorious than the candidate
who was appointed. Moreover, in the event that her merits
should be deemed to have been no more than equivalent to                  In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
those of that candidate, priority ought to have been given to             defendants’ conduct in this case constitutes a misuse of powers
the applicant by reason of the fact that she is a woman.                  inasmuch as it was aimed only at protecting in an ill-considered
                                                                          manner the interests of the market and of the beef sector.
                                                                          According to the applicants, the defendants’ action consisted
                                                                          in dissuading the Member States from adopting unilateral
                                                                          protective measures.
Action brought on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others
                                                                          The applicants further maintain that the defendants’ internal
against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          disorganisation led their staff to underestimate the risks of BSE
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          developing and by that very fact constitutes a serious breach
                                                                          of the legitimate expectations of European consumers.
                          (Case T-138/03)
                         (2003/C 158/47)                                  The applicants draw attention to the abnormal and special
                                                                          nature of the damage suffered by them as a result of the non-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         natural cause of BSE and of the inapplicability of the European
                                                                          system of producers’ liability for defective products to the case
                                                                          in point.
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others, represented by François
Honnorat, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—     order compensation for the non-material or material
      damage suffered by them as a consequence of the
      infection of their close relatives with BSE;                                                 (Case T-140/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/48)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: English)
The applicants all live in France and are victims, either
indirectly or as persons entitled under or through persons who
have died in France, of a ‘variant’ form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
disease. By this action, the applicants are lodging a claim for           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
damages to compensate for the material or non-material                    European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187,
damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the death of                Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr A. Sutton and Mr
persons infected with BSE.                                                J. Killick, Barristers.


title: Case T-277/15: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins (Terraway) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Terraway — Earlier national and international word marks TERRAWAY — Partial rejection of the opposition — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/35

         Order of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins (Terraway)
   (Case T-277/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Terraway - Earlier national and international word marks TERRAWAY - Partial rejection of the opposition - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law))
   (2016/C 106/40)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, R. Duarte Morais, M. Ribeiro da Fonseca and S. Luís Dias, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2496/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda and Permapore Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Permapore Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM).

               3.

               José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-87/12: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2014  — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/33

         Order of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff)
   (Case T-87/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 112/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Duff Beer UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Eschwege, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: S. Böttger and M. Koch, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2011 (Case R 456/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Duff Beer UG (haftungsbeschränkt).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-14/00: Action brought on 18 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
18.3.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 79/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 18 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(a) Declare that, by failing to make available to the Com-
    mission LIT 29 223 322 226 and by not paying default
    interest on that amount as from 1 January 1996, the Italian                                (Case C-14/00)
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    Community provisions on own resources;
                                                                                (2000/C 79/32)
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 January
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
The Commission and the Italian Republic have agreed that the          and Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to
duties relating to the importation into Italy of goods from           the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
third countries intended for San Marino during the period             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
running from 1 January 1979 to 30 November 1992 (that is              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
to say before the entry into force of the interim commercial
and customs union agreement between the Community and
San Marino of 16 December 1991 (1), did not constitute                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community own resources in view of San Marino’s sovereign
state status and of the fact that it was not a Member State of
the Community. It was moreover agreed that a specific                 — Declare that, by prohibiting products containing vegetable
distinction was to be drawn between the duties payable to San              fats other than cocoa butter, which are lawfully manufac-
Marino and the duties levied by Italy which constituted                    tured in Member States which permit the use of such
Community own resources and that, in order to protect the                  substances, from being marketed in Italy under the name
Community’s financial interests, such a distinction could not              with which they are marketed in the State of origin
be made unilaterally by Italy without the approval of the                  and requiring that such products be marketed only on
Commission. However, no agreement was reached with regard                  condition that they bear the words ‘chocolate substitute’,
to the method to be employed when determining the duties                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
payable to San Marino; Italy has therefore improperly reduced              Article 28 of the Treaty; and
the own resources payable to the Community by carrying out
deductions, without the prior approval of the Commission,
according to a method contested by the Commission.                    — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
According to the Commission, by continuing to make
deductions unilaterally from its payment of own resources
without the approval of the Commission and without                    Pleas in law and main arguments
responding to the Commission’s request to justify such
deductions, thus threatening improperly to reduce the Com-
munity’s own resources, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the Treaty.                                                     A ministerial circular adopted in 15 March 1996 lays down
                                                                      that chocolate products originating in the United Kingdom,
                                                                      Ireland and Denmark containing vegetable fats other than
The Commission accordingly asked the Italian Government to            cocoa butter may be marketed in Italy only under the name
make available to the Commission LIT 29 223 322 226 and               ‘chocolate substitute’.
to pay default interest thereon as from 1 January 1996, the
date from which such interest was due in view of the failure to
pay the principal sum, and until that sum is made available.
                                                                      The chocolate products in question are products which are
                                                                      lawfully manufactured in Member States which permit the
Since the abovementioned amount has not been made available           addition of vegetable fats and which comply with the manufac-
to the Commission and since the relevant default interest has         turing requirements laid down in Council Directive
not been paid, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its          73/241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the
obligations under the Community provisions relating to own            laws of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate,
resources.                                                            products intended for human consumption (1).
(1) OJ 1992 L 359, p. 14.
                                                                      The Italian authorities claim that the national provisions in
                                                                      question do not prevent access to the Italian market for the
                                                                      products concerned but rather provide for a namechange in
                                                                      the interests of consumer protection.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/18                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
According to the Commission, it cannot be stated that the                   — should a deduction be allowed by way of general
mere presence of vegetable fats changes the nature of the                       expenses?
product to the extent that the name ‘chocolate’ could create
confusion as to the essential nature of the product itself.
                                                                       (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
The requirement that the name of the product be changed (to                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
its detriment) must be precluded inasmuch as it seriously                  basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).
prejudices recognition of the product as part of a category to
which it rightfully belongs. As such, it is a disproportionate
measure with regard to the objective pursued, namely con-
sumer information.
(1) OJ 1973 L 228, p. 23.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                       Asti — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, by
                                                                       order of 17 December 1999 in the criminal proceedings
                                                                                pending before it against Maurizio Perino
                                                                                (Case C-18/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-                                        (2000/C 79/34)
istratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) by judgment of that court
of 6 January 2000 in the case of Cibo Participations S.A.              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against Directeur Régional des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Ca-               European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Asti
                                 lais                                  (District Court, Asti) of 17 December 1999, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 20 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                           (Case C-16/00)                              in the criminal proceedings pending against Maurizio Perino
                                                                       on the following question:
                           (2000/C 79/33)
                                                                       Does Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (1)
                                                                       permit the storage of waste for submission, not only to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 operations listed in points R1 to R12 of Annex IIB, but also to
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-              another, separate phase of storage, or does the directive require
tratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) (Administrative Court, Lille)           persons storing waste to deliver it solely to a person who
(Fourth Chamber) of 6 January 2000, received at the Court              carries out operations to recover the waste?
Registry on 19 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Cibo Participations S.A. against Directeur Régional des
Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the following questions:               (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                           on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
1. What are the criteria for establishing ‘involvement’? Can it
     be inferred from the provision of paid services, or the
     running of a group of companies by its holding company,
     or de facto management which excludes the independence
     of the subsidiary, or some other factor?
2. Where there is ‘involvement’, does the receipt of dividends         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of
     remain outside the scope of value added tax for any reason        Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January
     other than economic activity, in that such receipts are not       2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading
     the consideration for the supply of goods or services,            as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Minis-
                                                                                ters
     — or, taking account of the fact that fees are incurred in
         connection with the acquisition of shares, the specific                                 (Case C-20/00)
         purpose of which is to enable direct participation in
         economic activity, do dividend receipts fall within the                                 (2000/C 79/35)
         scope of value added tax and, if so, are such receipts
         exempt under Article 13B(1)(d) of the Sixth Council           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         Directive (1) or taxable?                                     European Communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                       Scotland, of 11 January 2000, which was received at the Court
3. If the receipt of dividends remains outside the scope of            Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
     value added tax, what are the implications for deduction:         case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest
                                                                       McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers, on the following
     — does no right remain to deduct tax on fees incurred in          questions:
         connection with the acquisition of shares, on the
         ground that those fees do not relate to a taxable             1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
         transaction, or                                                    93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak


title: Case C-452/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) by order of 19 October 2001 in the case of 1. Margarete Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg

text:
6.4.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 84/39
       (ii) assignable                                                   Action brought on 27 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Italian
       before they can be described a ‘goods’ that fall within the                                      Republic
       provisions of 1993 Regulations and/or in the Directive?
                                                                                (Case C-455/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/68)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) by order of 19 October 2001 in the
case of 1. Margarete Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Familienstiftung v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des                     Court of Justice on 27 November 2001 by the Commission of
                        Landes Vorarlberg                                the European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
                                                                         wright and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-452/01)
                          (2002/C 84/67)                                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by keeping in force legislation under which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         products in respect of which there has not yet been full
European Communities by order of 19 October 2001 by the                        harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Aus-                      flying the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November                 of conformity has been issued by a national body — so
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Margarete                     that in some cases the right to market the products is
Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung v Unabhän-                   enjoyed only by the grantee of the certificate — and by
giger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg on the following                  not recognising the validity of tests carried out in
questions:                                                                     accordance with international standards by bodies
                                                                               officially recognised in the other Member States or States
1.     Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and                   signatory to the EEA Agreement, even where the relevant
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC                 information is made available to the competent authority
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that rules whereby                 and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
       transactions in agricultural and forestry plots are subject             guarantees an equivalent degree of safety, the Italian
       to restrictions imposed by the administrative authorities               Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       in the public interest of preserving, strengthening or                  Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty;
       creating a viable farming community are also permitted
       in relation to Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’      —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
       under Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)
       having regard to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed
       by an applicable law of the European Union, in particular
       the free movement of capital?
                                                                         Pleas and principal arguments
2.     In the event that the first question is answered in the
       affirmative:
       Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and
                                                                         The slavish application — when not justified by overriding
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC
                                                                         requirements — to goods lawfully produced and marketed in
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the
                                                                         other Member States of rules laid down for domestically
       appellant must, in the case of transfers of agricultural and
                                                                         produced goods, and in particular the refusal to take account,
       forestry plots, undergo an ‘authorisation procedure’ even
                                                                         for the purposes of issuing ‘type approval declarations’, of
       before the property right is entered in the land register,
                                                                         certificates accompanying such goods, even where they contain
       pursuant to the (Voralberg) Gesetz über den Verkehr mit
                                                                         the information needed to assess how safe they are, undoubt-
       Grundstücken (Land Transfer Law — VGVG 1993)
                                                                         edly constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a
       published in Voralberg LGBl. No 61/1993, entails an
                                                                         quantitative restriction on imports which is liable to hinder
       infringement of Community law and of one of the
                                                                         intra-Community trade.
       appellant’s fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the law
       of the European Union, which is also applicable to
       Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’ under
       Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)?               The foregoing is common ground. At issue is the measure
                                                                         adopted by the Italian State in order to adjust its domestic
                                                                         legislation to the principles laid down in Community law once