title: Case C-507/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against X (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Protection of vulnerable persons — Hearing of minors as witnesses — Special measure for early taking of evidence — Refusal by the Public Prosecutor to request the judge in charge of preliminary investigations to hear a witness)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against X
   (Case C-507/10) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Protection of vulnerable persons - Hearing of minors as witnesses - Special measure for early taking of evidence - Refusal by the Public Prosecutor to request the judge in charge of preliminary investigations to hear a witness)
   2012/C 49/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Firenze

      Party in the main proceedings

   X

      Intervener: Y

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Firenze — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p 1) — Hearing of minors as witnesses — Hearing of a minor who has been the victim of sexual abuse — Protective measures which are not made mandatory by national legislation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2, 3 and 8(4) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as Articles 392(1a), 398(5a) and 394 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which, first, do not impose on the Public Prosecutor any obligation to apply to the competent court so that a victim who is particularly vulnerable may be heard and give evidence under the arrangements of the incidente probatorio during the investigation phase of criminal proceedings and, second, do not give to that victim the right to bring an appeal before a court against that decision of the Public Prosecutor rejecting his or her request to be heard and to give evidence under those arrangements.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case C-203/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret by order of 21 May 1999 in the case of Henning Veedfald v Århus Regional Authority

text:
7.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/19
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                2. The ‘recognition’ directive precludes a doctor who holds a
directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                   single degree and a single professional qualification from
                                                                               being included simultaneously in the register of medical
                                                                               practitioners and in that of dental practitioners;
(1) of 22 December 1995, OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 10.
(2) Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health             3. It appears to the Commission that, so far as professional
    problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products OJ               title is concerned, doctors who practise in Italy mainly as
    L 026, 31.1.1977, p. 85.                                                   dentists do not practise with the title ‘odontoiatra’ (dental
(3) of 17 December 1996, OJ L 013, 16.1.1997, p. 24.                           practitioner) but with that of ‘medico dentists’ (doctor
(4) of 17 December 1992, OJ L 062, 15.3.1993, p. 49.                           dentist), a title which was not notified to the Commission.
(5) of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-
    Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal              The Commission submits that the present situation runs
    market. OJ L 395, 30.12.89, p. 13.                                         counter to the coordinated system established by the
(6) of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks              ‘dental practitioner’ directives. A situation of this kind
    applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and            creates confusion in a host Member State and adversely
    products with a view to the completion of the internal market. OJ          affects professionals seeking to exercise their right of free
    L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.                                                   movement, whose qualifications may be challenged by the
                                                                               host State and held to be at variance with the directives.
                                                                          (1) Council directive of 25.7.1978, OJ L 233 of 24 August 1978,
                                                                              p. 10.
Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret by
                                                                          order of 21 May 1999 in the case of Henning Veedfald v
                          (Case C-202/99)                                                      Århus Regional Authority
                                                                                (Case C-203/99)
                          (1999/C 226/30)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/31)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
represented by Enrico Traverso, Legal Adviser, and Bernard                European Communities by order of 21 May 1999 by the
Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address           Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was received at the
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la            Court Registry on 26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                               the case of Henning Veedfald v Århus Regional Authority on
                                                                          the following questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Question 1:
1. declare that, by maintaining a second system of training
     for entry into the dental profession which is contrary to            Must Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July
     Directive 78/687/EEC (1), and by maintaining the possi-              1985 be construed as meaning that a defective product is not
     bility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly             put into circulation if the producer of the defective product, in
     registered in the registers of medical and dental prac-              the course of providing a specific medical service, produces
     titioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-       and uses the product on a human organ which, at the time
     gations under Directive 78/687/EEC;                                  when the damage occurred, had been removed from a donor’s
                                                                          body in order to be prepared for transplant into another
                                                                          person’s body, with resulting damage to the organ?
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Question 2:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Must Article 7(c) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1. It is clear to the Commission that the second training                 1985 be construed as meaning that a publicly owned hospital
     provided for by Law No 409 of 24 July 1985 (dental                   is free from liability under the directive for products produced
     training lasting three years) does not meet the mandatory            and used by that hospital in the course of providing a specific
     requirements of Article 1 of the ‘coordination’ directive,           publicly financed service to the person suffering injury and in
     which calls for special dental training lasting five years;          respect of which that person has not paid any consideration?
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
Question 3:                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Does Community law impose requirements as to how Member                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
States should define the expressions ‘damage caused by death                 European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of
or by personal injuries’ and ‘damage to, or destruction of, any              29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and
item of property’ in Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC               89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives
of 25 July 1985, or are individual Member States free to decide              73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life
what meaning is to be attached to those expressions?                         insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the
                                                                             field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
                                                                             investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of
                                                                             undertakings for collective investment in transferable
Question 4:                                                                  securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
                                                                             supervision, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
Must Article 9(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ                2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
which, at the time when the damage occurred, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression                 Pleas in law and main arguments
‘damage caused by ... personal injuries’ in relation to the
intended recipient of the organ?                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         submitted in Case C-168/99 (2) the period prescribed in Article
                                                                         6 of the directive expired on 18 July 1996.
Question 5:
                                                                         (1) OJ 1995 L 168, p. 7.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 264, p. 28.
Must Article 9(b) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ
which, at the time when the damage was occasioned, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression
‘damage to, or destruction of, any item of property’ in relation
to the intended recipient of the organ?                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
                                                                         of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a
                                                                         Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April
                                                                         1999 in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação
(1) On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
    provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
    products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).
                                                                                (Case C-206/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the
                                                                         First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância do
                                                                         Porto (Tax Court of First Instance, Oporto) of 16 April 1999,
                                                                         which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999, for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de
Action brought on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of                       Informação S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      (Directorate General of Registries and of the Notariat), on the
                          Luxembourg                                     following questions:
                        (Case C-204/99)                                  1. May the fees paid for the services of the Directorate General
                                                                             of Registries and of the Notariat be calculated and collected
                                                                             by reference to the amount to which the document relates?
                        (1999/C 226/32)
                                                                             (a) May that amount be unlimited?
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          (b) May that amount be calculated in the manner to which
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                      Question 1relates if there is an upper limit?
ties on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal                   2. In compliance with Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as                 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital,(1) must
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office              the court of the Member State reduce the amount payable
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                    in accordance with the upper limit laid down in national
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           legislation after the action was taken?


title: Case F-56/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2011 Hecq v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Social security — Meeting of 100 % of medical costs — Implied rejection decision — Premature complaint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2011
   Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-56/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Social security - Meeting of 100 % of medical costs - Implied rejection decision - Premature complaint - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 252/114
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Subject-matter of the case

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing full reimbursement of various medical costs.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Hecq is ordered to pay the whole of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246 of 11/09/10, p. 43.


title: Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT — Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
   (Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 78/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) [represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer (Case T-604/11) and T. Boddien, lawyer (Case T-292/12)]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11;

               3.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder;

               4.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12;

               5.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11;

               6.

               Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-198/00: Action brought on 28 July 2000 by Hershey Foods Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, Trade Marks and Designs

text:
21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/27
Action brought on 28 July 2000 by Hershey Foods                          European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Gerber Foods
Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the                  International Limited, London, represented by Neil Warriner
          Internal Market, Trade Marks and Designs                       and Craig Pouncey of Herbert Smith, Brussels.
                        (Case T-198/00)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 302/66)
                                                                         —     annul the Commission Decision dated 2 May 2000
                   (Language of the case: English)                             finding that the remission of import duties in a particular
                                                                               case is not justified (request submitted by the United
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal                 Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (REM
Market, Trade Marks and Designs, was brought before the                        13/99); and
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 July 2000 by Hershey Foods Corporation, a company
incorporated in Delaware, United States of America, represent-           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
ed by Roger Wyand QC.                                                          pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     alter the decision R 391/1999-3 of the Third Board of
      Appeal dated 29 May 2000 so that it annuls the decision            Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the Examiner in refusing the claimed mark and directs
      that the claimed mark be accepted for all goods applied
      for.
                                                                         The applicant imported processed tuna from Turkey, whose
                                                                         Turkish origin was certified by ATR.1 certificates issued by the
                                                                         Turkish customs authorities. Subsequent to an investigation in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Turkey, a mission report concluded that most of the raw
                                                                         materials used to produce the imported goods originated in
Trade Mark concerned:         Figurative mark in form of a ‘Kiss         third countries. Thus the tuna exported duty free to the
                              device with plume’ — Application           Community could not be considered to originate in Turkey.
                              No 712 828                                 HM Customs & Excise therefore issued to the applicant post-
                                                                         clearance demands in the amount of duty unpaid.
Product or Service:           certain goods in class 30
Contested        Decision     Refusal of Registration by the
before the Board of           Examiner                                   Subsequently, HM Customs & Excise submitted an application
Appeal:                                                                  to the Commission for a decision as to whether the remission
                                                                         of import duties was justified on the basis that a ‘special
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 73 of              situation’ within the terms of Article 239 of Council Regulation
                              Regulation 40/94                           (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) and Article 905 of Commission Regu-
                                                                         lation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) existed on the facts of the case.
                                                                         That application was rejected by the contested decision.
                                                                         The applicant argues that the contested decision is affected by
                                                                         several procedural and substantive defects and infringes in
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Gerber Foods Inter-                    particular:
national Limited against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                         —     Article 239 of Regulation 2913/92;
                        (Case T-199/00)
                                                                         —     Decisions 4/72, 5/72, 1/75 and 1/80 of the EEC —
                        (2000/C 302/67)                                        Turkey Association Council;
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               —     the principles of legality and proper administration;


title: Case C-677/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF) (Article 107(1) TFEU — State aid — Concept of ‘State resources’ — Concept of ‘imputability to the State’ — Inter-trade organisations in the agricultural sector — Recognised organisations — Common activities decided on by those organisations in the interests of trade — Financing by means of contributions introduced on a voluntary basis by those organisations — Administrative measure making those contributions compulsory for all traders in the agricultural industry affected)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)
   (Case C-677/11) (1)

   (Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘State resources’ - Concept of ‘imputability to the State’ - Inter-trade organisations in the agricultural sector - Recognised organisations - Common activities decided on by those organisations in the interests of trade - Financing by means of contributions introduced on a voluntary basis by those organisations - Administrative measure making those contributions compulsory for all traders in the agricultural industry affected)
   2013/C 225/35
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Doux Élevage SNC, Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE

      Defendants: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 107 TFEU in the light of Case C-354/02 Pearle and Others — Decision by which a national authority extends to all the traders in an industry an agreement which introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that authority and renders that contribution compulsory — Implementation of publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, activities in defence of the sector’s interests — Financing of activities which are contrary to EU law — Concept of ‘aid’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a national authority extends to all traders in an agricultural industry an agreement which, like the inter-trade agreement at issue in the main proceedings, introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, quality assurance activities, research activities and activities in defence of the sector’s interests, does not constitute State aid.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-357/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Harald Wohlfahrt v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) — Word sign ‘Kindertraum’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/48

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Harald Wohlfahrt v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero SpA
   (Case C-357/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) - Word sign ‘Kindertraum’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder)
   2013/C 225/83
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Harald Wohlfahrt (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Ferrero SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2012 in Case T-580/10 Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt — Registration of the word sign ‘Kindertraum’ for goods in Classes 16 and 28 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier word mark ‘Kinder’ — Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 42(2), and 75, first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Harald Wohlfahrt shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012


title: Case T-337/13: Action brought on 19 July 2013 — CSF v European Commission

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/13

         Action brought on 19 July 2013 — CSF v European Commission
   (Case T-337/13)
   2013/C 233/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2013/173/EU published on 10 April 2013 and notified to the applicant on 16 April 2013;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action contests Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013‘on a measure taken by Denmark according to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery’. That decision found the ban imposed by the Danish authorities to be justified (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 5, 6(1), 7 and 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC and points 1.1.2 and 3.4.4 of Annex I thereto.

                           —

                           It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision is not compatible with the above provisions since it did not take into account the fact that, in reality, the FOPS protective structures for the applicant’s Multione S630 machines are mandatory in all cases in which use of the machines exposes the operator to the risk of falling objects or material.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           It is submitted in that regard that the Danish measure which the contested decision finds to be justified imposed restrictive measures solely on the movement of multi-purpose Multione S630 machines, even though many other multi-purpose machines similar in type to the Multione S630, and used in the same way, are on the market in Denmark without being obliged to have FOPS.


title: Case F-120/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Coutureau v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed–term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/68

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Coutureau v Europol
   (Case F-120/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed–term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))
   2014/C 253/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christèle Coutureau (Rijswijk, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Coutureau to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8/8/2012, p. 36.


title: Case C-329/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, by order of that court of 20 July 2001, in the case of the Queen on the application of British Sugar plc against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

text:
27.10.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 303/11
Action brought on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of                     1.   In circumstances where:
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                            (a)   a trader has exported a quantity of C sugar which
                                                                                exceeds the amount for which export was authorised
                        (Case C-325/01)                                           by the licence concerned; and/or
                        (2001/C 303/18)
                                                                            (b) a trader has exported C sugar after the expiry of the
                                                                                validity of the licence authorising the said export;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, Head of the                     (c)   even if, as a matter of fact, the relevant C sugar left
European Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.                          the Customs territory of the Community;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 has the proof required by the first indent of Article 2(2)
                                                                            of Regulation 2670/81 (1) been furnished in relation to
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 (1) of                  that export, or that element of the relevant export, which
      29 June 2001 providing for the continued application of               was not covered by a valid licence?
      safeguard measures with regard to imports of sugar
      sector products with EC/OCT originating status from the          2.   In the circumstances described in paragraph 1(a) above is
      overseas countries and territories for the period 1 July to           the answer to the above question different in circum-
      1 December 2001;                                                      stances where:
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
      ings.                                                                 (a)   the trader presented to the customs authority a
                                                                                customs declaration form (C88) amended in manu-
                                                                                script to reflect the amount actually exported; and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            (b) the customs authority has endorsed the relevant
                                                                                licence extract against the trader’s entry in the actual
The Netherlands refer to the application submitted in Case                        amount exported?
C-452/00 (2).
                                                                       3.   Is the answer to question 1 above different on the
(1) OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001, p. 57.                                           assumption that the circumstances were as follows:
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001, p. 12.
                                                                            (a)   the trader intended to apply for an extract for
                                                                                2 900 tonnes;
                                                                            (b) owing to an error on the part of the trader, a licence
                                                                                extract was issued for 2,9 tonnes and this 2,9 tonnes
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                              was recorded in the records of both the Intervention
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,                             Board and the trader;
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 20 July
2001, in the case of the Queen on the application of British
Sugar plc against Intervention Board for Agricultural                       (c)   the licence extract was attributed, with the authority
                             Produce                                              of the trader, by the trader’s agent, accurately to
                                                                                record the trader’s intention of exporting
                        (Case C-329/01)                                           2 900 tonnes;
                        (2001/C 303/19)                                     (d) that licence extract was subsequently endorsed by
                                                                                H.M. Customs & Excise to certify the export of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            2 900 tonnes of sugar;
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-                 (e)   the sugar was subject to a Form C88 export licence
trative Court, of 20 July 2001, which was received at the Court                   for 2 900 tonnes, which was subsequently attributed
Registry on 4 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the                     and endorsed by H.M. Customs & Excise;
case of the Queen on the application of British Sugar plc
against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the
following questions:                                                        (f)   2 900 tonnes of sugar were in fact exported;
 ---pagebreak--- C 303/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.10.2001
    (g)   licence extracts were subsequently applied for, and           7.    In the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 33 to 35
          granted, on the basis that only 2,9 tonnes had earlier              above, is a penalty under Article 3 of Regulation 2670/81
          been authorized for export;                                         properly levied?
    (h) each subsequent licence extract was duly attributed             (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
          and endorsed and all sugar tonnages so noted were                 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar
          in fact exported;                                                 production in excess of the quota (OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 14).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November
                                                                            1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of
                                                                            the system of import and export licences and advance fixing
    (i)   in the result, 2 897,1 tonnes of sugar were exported              certificates for agricultural products (OJ L 331, 2.12.1988, p. 1).
          in excess of the volume authorized in the original
          licence.
4.  Does Article 24 of the Regulation 3719/88 (2) enable the
    competent authority to withdraw the extract or the
    licence or certificate as well as any extracts previously
    issued and require the competent authority to issue
    without delay a corrected licence or extract or any                 Appeal brought on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT
    attribution thereto in circumstances where:                         against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the
                                                                        Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Horti-
                                                                        plant SAT and Commission of the European Communities
    (a)   there is no obvious or manifest error on the face of
          the licence or extract itself and where there has been
          no error on the part of the issuing agency; and/or                                       (Case C-330/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 303/20)
    (b) the amendment is sought to be made after the expiry
          of the validity of the relevant extract or head licence?
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    (c)   does it make a difference if the trader intended to           European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Hortiplant
          apply for a licence extract (from a licence already           SAT and the Commission of the European Communities
          issued) in respect of a quantity greater than that for        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
          which he called off;                                          Communities on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT,
                                                                        represented by C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas,
                                                                        abogadas, with an address for service at 60 Avenue de
                                                                        Cortenbergh, 1000 Brussels.
5.  If the answers to the above questions are negative, do the
    provisions of Article 24 of Commission Regulation
    3719/88 infringe the Community law principles of
    proportionality and/or equality in that the absence of any          The appellant claims that the Court should:
    power to amend the head licence, licence extract or
    attributes thereto may, in the circumstances referred to
    above, lead to the imposition of a fine under Article 3 of          1.    declare the present case admissible and founded;
    Commission Regulation 2670/81?
                                                                        2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                              14 June 2001 and give a final decision on the dispute;
6.  (a)   Does the national court and/or the national auth-
          ority have a discretion to vary (downwards) the               3.    in the alternative, send the case back to the Court of First
          amount of the penalty to be imposed under Article 3                 Instance for judgment in accordance with the decision of
          of Commission Regulation 2670/81?                                   the Court of Justice on points of law;
                                                                        4.    in any event, order the Commission of the European
    (b) If so, are there any factors in this case which the                   Communities to pay all the costs arising from these
          Court regards as relevant to the exercise of that                   proceedings, including those incurred as a result of
          discretion?                                                         proceedings before the Court of First Instance.


title: Case T-487/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Banco Privado Português, S.A. and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/28

         Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Banco Privado Português, S.A. and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission
   (Case T-487/11)
   2011/C 340/57
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco Privado Português, S.A. — em liquidação (‘BPP’) and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português, S.A. — em liquidação (‘assets in the insolvency’) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: C. Fernandez, F. Pereira Coutinho, M. Esperança Pina, T. Mafalda Santos, R. Leandro Vasconcelos and A. Kéri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision No 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (‘the contested decision’); (1)

               —

               Or, alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it declared the State aid involved in the guarantee to be unlawful and incompatible for the period between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid under Articles 2 to 4 thereof;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered recovery between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: lack of reasoning:

                           —

                           The Commission did not explain to what extent the grant of the guarantee was likely to affect trade between Member States and consequently distort competition. The method of calculating the amount of the alleged aid is not adequately reasoned. The Commission failed to state reasons — or at least it put forward reasoning that was obscure and/or contained an irreconcilable contradiction — so far as the duration of the alleged aid and hence the calculation of the relevant amount was concerned.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU:

                           —

                           The Commission failed to have regard to the fact that the State guarantee granted to BPP was justified under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU concerning State aid ‘to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’.

               3.

               Third plea in law: manifest error of assessment of the facts and consequently infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The Commission applied the law incorrectly to the facts and did not have regard, in particular, to the fact that BPP was no longer trading or that the purpose of the guarantee was exclusively to provide funding to meet certain balance-sheet liabilities predating the grant of the guarantee. The guarantee granted did not confer an advantage on BPP, did not affect trade between Member States, did not distort competition, nor was it likely to produce those effects, and accordingly it could not be regarded as incompatible with the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU

                           —

                           The contested decision ordered the alleged aid, which is not incompatible with the internal market, to be recovered on purely procedural grounds. The method of calculating the amount to be recovered did not have regard to the principles laid down by the Commission’s Guidelines.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the right to sound administration:

                           —

                           The Commission imposed an exorbitant requirement having no legal basis, in that Portugal must notify the extension of the guarantee in an identical manner to the formal notifications required for new aid.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations:

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations in so far as it orders the recovery of the alleged aid.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to fair treatment:

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes the right to fair treatment, in so far as the present case was treated differently from similar situations.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95.


title: Case C-123/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2010 — Waltraud Brachner v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2010 — Waltraud Brachner v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
   (Case C-123/10)
   2010/C 148/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Waltraud Brachner

      Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the annual pension adjustment system (valorisation) provided for in the law on the statutory pension insurance scheme falls within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 4(1) of that directive?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Is Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC to be interpreted as precluding a national provision concerning an annual pension adjustment whereby a potentially smaller increase is provided for a particular category of pensioners receiving a small pension than for other pensioners, in so far as the provision in question adversely affects 25 % of male pensioners, but 57 % of female pensioners and there are no objective grounds for discrimination?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
               May a disadvantage for female pensioners arising from the annual increase in their pensions be justified by the earlier age at which they become entitled to a pension and/or the longer period during which they receive a pension and/or by the fact that the standard amount for a minimum income, provided for under social law (balancing supplement standard amount), was disproportionately increased, where the provisions concerning the payment of the minimum income provided for under social law (balancing supplement) require account to be taken of the pensioner’s other income and the income of a spouse living in the common household, whereas in the case of other pensioners the pension increase takes place without account being taken of the pensioner’s other income or the income of the pensioner’s spouse?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).


title: Case T-383/05: Action brought on  20 October 2005  — GHK Consulting/Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/18

         Action brought on 20 October 2005 — GHK Consulting/Commission
   (Case T-383/05)
   (2005/C 315/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): GHK Consulting Limited (London, United Kingdom) [represented by: J-E. Svensson, M. Dittmer, lawyers]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission's Decision of 12 October 2005 excluding the candidacy and the offer of the consortium headed by the applicant, whereby the Commission revoked its decision on allocating the framework contract to the consortium, in relation to Tender EuropeAid//119860/C/ — Lot No. 7;

               —

               annul any decision by the Commission following the Commission's Decision of 12 October 2005 and, in particular, any decision by the Commission to enter into contract with other tenderers;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs related to the case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission issued, under reference EuropeAid//119860/C — Lot No. 7, an invitation to tender for a multiple framework contract to recruit technical assistance for short-term expertise for the exclusive benefit of third countries benefiting from European Commission external aid. The applicant, acting as leader of a consortium, submitted a bid.
   By the contested Decision the Commission excluded the applicant's consortium on the grounds that the Danish Institute of International Studies (‘DIIS’), a member of the applicant's consortium, was part of the same group as the Danish Institute of Human Rights (‘DIHR’), which participated in another consortium bidding for the same contract. Article 13 of the public procurement notice in question prohibited legal persons within the same legal group from submitting more than one application per lot.
   In support of its request to annul the contested Decision the applicant disputes the Commission's conclusion that DIIS, DIHR and a third institute constitute a legal group. According to the applicant, none of these entities controls the others as the institutes are completely self-governing and each have a separate statute, share no academic staff, have their own management and board elected by completely different bodies, and share no common economic interests or objectives. The applicant further submits that any unclear points in the procurement notice must be interpreted in favour of the tenderers and that the Commission is responsible for not making the conditions for participation clear beforehand.


title: Case C-328/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Spain) — Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 4(2)(d) — Well-known marks in a Member State within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention — Knowledge of the trade mark — Geographical area)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Spain) — Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet
   (Case C-328/06) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 4(2)(d) - ‘Well-known’ marks in a Member State within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Knowledge of the trade mark - Geographical area)
   (2008/C 22/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Mercantil
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfredo Nieto Nuño

      Defendant: Leonci Monlleó Franquet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘well known’ — Whether knowledge and use may be confined to a limited territory, such as an autonomous community, a region, an area or a city, depending on the goods or services concerned and the public for whom the mark is intended
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(2)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the earlier trade mark must be well known throughout the territory of the Member State of registration or in a substantial part of it.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2005 in Case T-57/03 Société provençale d'achat et de gestion (SPAG) SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOOLIGAN — Earlier word marks OLLY GAN — Matters of fact or of law outside OHIM's jurisdiction — Admissibility — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/26

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 February 2005
   in Case T-57/03 Société provençale d'achat et de gestion (SPAG) SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HOOLIGAN - Earlier word marks OLLY GAN - Matters of fact or of law outside OHIM's jurisdiction - Admissibility - Likelihood of confusion)
   (2005/C 93/52)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-57/03: Société provençale d'achat et de gestion (SPAG) SA, established in Marseille (France), represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider), the other parties to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Frank Dann and Andreas Backer, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany), represented by P. Baronikians, lawyer — action brought against the decision of 5 December 2002 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1072/2000-2), relating to opposition proceedings concerning the marks HOOLIGAN and OLLY GAN — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2000 in Case T-115/00: Christiane Chvatal v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Action for annulment and damages — Refusal to comply with a judgment — Annulment of the judgment — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
21.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 118/39
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 November 2000
                       of 31 October 2000
                                                                         in Case T-115/00: Christiane Chvatal v Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-85/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and
Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. v Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         (Action for annulment and damages — Refusal to comply
                                                                         with a judgment — Annulment of the judgment — Case not
                                                                                proceeding to judgment)
(Interlocutory proceedings — Withdrawal of marketing
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
ing fenproporex — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
                                                                                (2001/C 118/108)
                    Need to balance interests)
                         (2001/C 118/107)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-115/00: Christiane Chvatal, an official of the Court
                                                                         of Justice of the European Communities, residing at Itzig
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Luxembourg), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxem-
                                                                         bourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         latter’s Chambers, 2 Rue des Dahlias, v Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application,
In Case T-85/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Lda, of Mem                    first, for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice
Martins (Portugal), and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l.,           rejecting the applicant’s request that the institution make
of Puteaux (France), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,            representations to the Council asking it to adopt, upon
Bonn, Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, measures to
the Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,                    terminate the service of officials of the Court of Justice in
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  accordance with the proposal submitted to it, alternatively to
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the                      adopt any other appropriate rules to ensure compliance with
suspension of application of the decision of the Commission              the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations              30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 and to include the
for placing on the market medicinal products for human                   applicant’s name in the list of persons having expressed an
consumption containing, in particular, fenproporex — the                 interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                service, and, second, for damages — the Court of First
31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
                                                                         and M. Jaeger and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                         an order on 17 November 2000, the operative part of which
1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the            is as follows:
     Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
     authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
     for human consumption containing clobenzorex, fenbutrazat,          1.     There is no need to give a decision on the present application.
     fenproporex, mazindol, mefenorex, norpseudoephedrine, phen-
     metrazine, phendimetrazine and propylhexedrine (C(2000)
     608) is suspended.                                                  2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case T-364/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  26 January 2006  — Medici Grimm v Council (Dumping — Imports of leather handbags originating in the People's Republic of China — Amendment of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — No retroactive effect — Annulment by the Court of First Instance — Action for damages — Sufficiently serious breach)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2006 — Medici Grimm v Council
   (Case T-364/03) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of leather handbags originating in the People's Republic of China - Amendment of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No retroactive effect - Annulment by the Court of First Instance - Action for damages - Sufficiently serious breach)
   (2006/C 74/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Medici Grimm KG (Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and E. Gybels, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)
   Application for
   compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the absence of retroactive effect of Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 1997 L 296, p. 1), partially annulled by the judgment in Case T-7/99 Medici Grimm v Council [2000] ECR II-2671
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               The applicant shall bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council;

               3.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-181/13: Action brought on 29 March 2013 — Sharif University of Technology v Council

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/47

         Action brought on 29 March 2013 — Sharif University of Technology v Council
   (Case T-181/13)
   2013/C 156/87
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (1), Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (2), the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (3) and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (4), insofar as they concern the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 were adopted in violation of the applicant's rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection. The Council has breached its obligation to give reasons since the reasons given by the Council are insufficient for the applicant to understand the basis on which it has been subjected to restrictive measures. The Council has violated the applicant’s rights of defence by reason of its failure to provide the applicant with access to the Council’s file on it and because that failure has had as a consequence that the applicant been unable to make known its views on the evidence adduced to justify the measures imposed on it. The failures of the Council to give reasons for its decision and provide the applicant with access to its file have also infringed the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment as regards its adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant. The applicant denies the allegations made against it and puts the Council to strict proof of the facts alleged.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed on it violate its right to property and are disproportionate. The designation of the applicant did not take place under the conditions provided by law. Moreover, the Council failed entirely to take into account the fact that the applicant is not a commercial enterprise, but an institute of higher learning, and the consequent effects of its designation not only for itself but also for its students, faculty and collaborators.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71)

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)


title: Case T-452/10: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — ClientEarth v Council (Action for annulment — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/22

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — ClientEarth v Council
   (Case T-452/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hockman QC, and P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and B. Driessen, Agents)

      Intervening parties on behalf of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Vang and S. Juul Jørgensen Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by H. Leppo and M. Pere, Agents); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Petkovska, A. Falk, S. Johannesson and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 26 July 2010 refusing to grant the applicant full access to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service (Document No 6865/09) on the European Parliament’s draft amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               ClientEarth shall bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-237/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Tissue France v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/39

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Tissue France v Commission
   (Case T-237/13)
   2013/C 171/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SCA Tissue France (Bois Colombes, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds hollow tubes, except those intended for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case T-205/11: Action brought on 7 April 2011 — Germany v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/28

         Action brought on 7 April 2011 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-205/11)
   2011/C 186/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision K(2011)275 final, issued on 26 January 2011 by the Commission in the procedure ‘State aid C 7/2010 relating to the fiscal carry-forward of losses (“Sanierungsklausel”)’;

               —

               in the alternative: annul in part Decision K(2011)275 final, issued on 26 January 2011 by the Commission in the procedure ‘State aid C 7/2010 relating to the fiscal carry-forward of losses (“Sanierungsklausel”)’ in so far as, by Article 2 thereof, the Commission decided that the individual aid granted is wholly incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered in its entirety in each case where the amount of the individual aid exceeds EUR 500 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               —

               Pleas in support of the principal form of order sought:

                           1.

                           First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: no selectivity owing to the fact that the provision enabling the carry forward of fiscal losses (‘the Sanierungsklausel’) does not constitute an exception within the relevant reference system.

                     The German Government submits that the Sanierungsklausel laid down in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Law on corporation tax (Körperschaftssteuergesetz, ‘the KStG’), under which it is possible to carry fiscal losses forward in the case of undertakings which have been taken over with a view to their ‘turn-around’, is not selective. According to the German Government, this arrangement does not constitute a State aid scheme for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the above provision does not introduce any exception to the relevant reference system.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: manifest error of assessment relating to the general character of the measure.

                     The German Government submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment with regard to the question whether the Sanierungsklausel laid down in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is a general measure, in so far as the Commission adopted an inappropriate approach to the analysis of that question and did not consider, in the context of an overall economic assessment, whether the Sanierungsklausel was based on ‘horizontal’ data which were equally valid for all undertakings; according to the German Government, the Sanierungsklausel is thus of benefit across the board to every undertaking on German territory and, in consequence, can be categorised as a general measure.

                           3.

                           Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: no selectivity owing to the fact that the Commission did not take into consideration the fact that the legislation at issue is justified by the nature and the internal structure of the German fiscal system.

                     According to the German Government, the Sanierungsklausel laid down in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is not selective and, in consequence, does not amount to a State aid scheme for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, since it is justified by the nature and the internal structure of the German fiscal system.

               —

               Plea in support of the alternative form of order sought:

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with the temporary Union framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis.

                           —

                           The Commission misapplied Article 107(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with the Commission Communication on the ‘Temporary Union framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis’, in so far as it treated the amount of EUR 500 000 referred to in Article 2 of the decision as an exemption ceiling, so that aid paid in excess of that amount triggers an obligation to repay all the aid in full, rather than as a threshold marking the limits of an approved aid amount, so that only the aid paid in excess of that amount falls to be repaid.


title: Case T-18/10 R II: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council (Applications for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Ban on import and sale — Exception in favour of Inuit communities — Second application for suspension of operation of a measure — New facts — No urgency)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/42

         Order of the General Court of 25 October 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-18/10 R II)
   (Applications for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Ban on import and sale - Exception in favour of Inuit communities - Second application for suspension of operation of a measure - New facts - No urgency)
   2010/C 346/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada), Nativak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada), Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq), Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq), Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq), David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada), Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada), Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada), Ta Ma Su Seal Products (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa), NuTan Furs, Inc. (Catalina, Canada), GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway), Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland (ICC) (Nuuk, Greenland, Denmark), Johannes Egede (Nuuk), Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk) (represented by: J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: É. White, P. Oliver and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents); and Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of the President of the General Court of 19 August 2010 in Case T-18/10 R II Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, not published in the ECR, is cancelled.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Removal from the register of C-295/96

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 199/21
          Removal from the register of C-202/96 (')                             Removal from the register of C-273/96 ( l )
                           ( 97/C 199/55 )                                                         ( 97/C 199/58 )
By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Case C-202/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                from the register of Case C-273/96 ( Reference for a
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris ): Societe des Labora             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
toires Valda v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Regularisation              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
du Marche du Sucre ( FIRS ).                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Bartolomeo Terranova.
H OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-271/96 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/56 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-295/96 ( ' )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                               97/C 199/59 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-271/96 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 17 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-295/96 : Commission
against Antonio Nardi .
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(■) OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .                                       (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-272/96 H
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-296/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 199/57 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/60 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-272/96 ( Reference for a                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-296/96 ( Reference for a
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Alfredo Cipriani .                                             Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto Division )):
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola .
 (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-387/99: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — Directive 65/65/EEC — Food preparations containing three times more vitamins than the recommended daily amount — Preparations lawfully marketed as food supplements in the Member State of exportation — Preparations classified as medicinal products in the Member State of importation — ‘Medicinal product’ — Obstacle — Justification — Public health — Proportionality — Admissibility of the application)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-387/99: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) - Directive 65/65/EEC - Food preparations containing three times more vitamins than the recommended daily amount - Preparations lawfully marketed as food supplements in the Member State of exportation - Preparations classified as medicinal products in the Member State of importation - ‘Medicinal product’ - Obstacle - Justification - Public health - Proportionality - Admissibility of the application)
   (2004/C 118/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-387/99: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Schmidt), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by J. Sedemund), supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin), with an address for service in Luxembourg - application for a declaration that, by classifying as medicinal products vitamin and mineral preparations which are lawfully produced or marketed as food supplements in the other Member States in the case where they contain three times more vitamins and mineral salts than the daily amount recommended by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) - the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by automatically classifying as medicinal products vitamin preparations lawfully manufactured or marketed as food supplements in the other Member States in the case where they contain three times more vitamins, other than vitamins A and D, than the daily amount recommended by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung (German Food Association), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.