title: Case T-524/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Folch Torrela and Others v SRB

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/21

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Folch Torrela and Others v SRB
   (Case T-524/17)
   (2017/C 357/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ángel Folch Torrela (Terrassa, Spain) and 42 other applicants (represented by: V. Clavell Hernández, C. de Santiago Álvarez y J. Redondo Martín, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

               —

               consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-279/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/60

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-279/05)
   (2005/C 217/119)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 793/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B622 300 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case C-41/12 P: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2013 — Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/9

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2013 — Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited
   (Case C-41/12 P) (1)

   2013/C 377/18
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Action brought on 29 September 1998 by Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition (SIDE) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-155/98)

text:
5.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/19
    Action brought on 20 September 1998 by De Haan                  On 24 April 1998 the Netherlands brought an action
    Beheer BV against the Commission of the European                contesting that decision (Case C-157/98). The applicant
                        Communities                                 endorses the arguments advanced by the Netherlands
                      (Case T-150/98)                               Government and adopts those arguments as its own.
                       (98/C 378/35)                                In particular, the applicant advances the following pleas in
                                                                    law:
              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    1. First, infringement of Article 13(1) of Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1430/79, alternatively of Article 239(2) of
An action against the Commission of the European                         the Community Customs Code:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 20 September                     The Netherlands customs investigation authorities
1998 by De Haan Beheer BV, established at Alblasserdam                   knew of the fraud in advance, and were aware of it by
(Netherlands), represented by C. F. W. A. Hamm, of the                   the time that the first consignment had been
Dordrecht Bar, in his capacity as administrator in the                   despatched. However, they took no action in relation
insolvency of De Haan Beheer BV.                                         to it, with the result that the transport operations were
                                                                         able to proceed and the applicant, without being
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              aware of the fraud, incurred an unnecessarily
                                                                         substantial customs debt.
Ð annul Decision REM 15/97 of the Commission of                          The applicant complains, with reference to
    18 February 1998;                                                    paragraph 132 of the Judgment of the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of 19 February 1998 in Case T-42/96
                                                                         (Eyckeler & Malt v. Commission), that the
Ð rule that the present case concerns special
    circumstances justifying a refund in accordance with                 Commission has failed to comply with the principle of
                                                                         Community law requiring the exercise of due care, as
    Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/
    79 (1);                                                              regards the recognition of special circumstances within
                                                                         the meaning of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                         No 1430/79.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    2. Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                         reasons:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The Commission has failed to provide any reasons for
In 1993 the applicant, as an authorised consignor, issued                its assertion that there is insufficient proof of the
internal Community transit documents for the                             involvement of a Belgian customs official in the fraud,
transportation of cigarettes, the Office of destination being            and that, for that reason, no special situation can be
in Antwerp.                                                              said to exist.
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
However, those goods were not presented at the Office of                repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ L 175,
destination; the transport documents bore false stamps                  12.7.1979, p. 1).
and signatures. On account of the non-presentation of the
goods, a customs debt arose.
The applicant declared that it had acted in good faith and
that it had been the victim of fraudulent acts committed
by organised criminal gangs. It applied for remission of            Action brought on 29 September 1998 by SocieÂteÂ
the import duties on the basis of Article 13(1) of                  Internationale de Diffusion et d'EÂdition (SIDE) against
Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79, which provides for such                        the Commission of the European Communities
remission where there are special circumstances in which                                    (Case T-155/98)
no negligence or deception may be attributed to the
                                                                                (98/C 378/36)
person concerned.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The Commission rejected that application by decision of
18 February 1998, on the grounds that the declarant is              An action against the Commission of the European
responsible for ensuring that a Community transit                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
operation proceeds in the correct manner, that fraudulent           Instance of the European Communities on 29 September
acts by third parties constitute a normal commercial risk,          1998 by SocieÂteÂ Internationale de Diffusion et d'EÂdition
that the declarant is responsible for the acts of any               (SIDE), established in Bagneux (France), represented by
member of his staff who is involved in fraud, and that it           Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
had not beeen shown that any Belgian customs official               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
was involved.                                                       11 Rue Goethe.
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.12.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         in particular the definition of the market, the
                                                                    proportionality of the aid and the state of competition in
                                                                    the sector.
Ð annul the last sentence of Article 1 of the Commission
     decision of 10 June 1998 on State aid for CoopeÂrative
     d'exportation du livre francËais (CELF)';                      In addition, it alleges breach of the prohibition of
                                                                    discrimination in that the Commission authorised aid
                                                                    granted to one undertaking only and there was no
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            objective justification for the different treatment thus
                                                                    afforded the other undertakings on the market.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the fourth
The applicant, the same as in Case T-49/93 SIDE v.                  subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty.
Commission (1), challenges the decision whereby the
Commission declared that State aid granted to                       (1) Judgment of 18 September 1995 in Case T-49/93 SIDE v.
CoopeÂrative d'exportation du livre francËais (CELF) was                Commission [1995] ECR II-2501.
compatible with the common market in accordance with
Article 92(3)(d) of the Treaty. In support of that assertion,
the Commission states in the decision that the aid in
question has a cultural purpose and does not affect
trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common
interest.                                                           Action brought on 30 September 1998 by GracËa Oliveira
                                                                                against the European Parliament
The applicant points out in this connection that, by                                      (Case T-157/98)
judgment of 18 September 1995, cited above, the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities had annulled                                     (98/C 378/37)
a Commission decision concerning aid granted exclusively
to CELF for handling small orders, on the ground that the                          (Language of the case: French)
Commission had failed to comply with its obligation to
initiate the inter partes procedure provided for by
Article 93(2) of the Treaty.                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 30 September 1998 by GracËa Oliveira,
In support of its claims, the applicant first of all alleges a      residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis
procedural defect, in that the Commission failed to                 and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
undertake a thorough and impartial investigation of the             address for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of
complaint and the observations of all the persons                   Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
concerned. On that point, it claims that there was unequal
treatment in the conduct of the proceedings, inasmuch as
CELF was closely involved in that procedure and was thus            The applicant claims that the Court should:
able to put forward its point of view as to the
proportionality of the aid it received. Furthermore, in the         Ð annul the Parliament's decision not to promote the
light of the fact that one of the most important facts                   applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions
adduced by the applicant in its observations was precisely               procedure;
the rebuttal of the actual definition of a small order, it
seems contrary to the principle of impartiality that it was
in the end CELF alone that the Commission invited to                Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
supply it with information on this crucial point.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Moreover, the applicant considers it remarkable to find,
on reading the contested decision, that the Commission              According to the applicant, the contested decision was
has not expressed any view on the fundamental issues in             adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.
the matter, namely: the true nature of the recipient of the         The appointing authority failed to undertake a proper
aid, the analysis of the market, the definition of a small          assessment of the merits of the officials eligible for
order and the proportionality of the aid. From that point           promotion, inasmuch as it did not take into account
of view, it also alleges failure to provide reasons, all the        criteria such as the priority recommendation made by her
more serious in the circumstances as the aid in question is         Director-General and the level of responsibility which she
one that, a priori, cannot be given the benefit of any              actually assumed.
derogation, since it is operating aid for exports granted to
a single undertaking and is not intended to disappear or
lessen with time.                                                   By omitting to provide the applicant with a precise and
                                                                    pertinent statement of the reasons for its decision not to
                                                                    follow the recommendation of the Joint Promotion
The applicant also claims that the contested decision               Committee, the appointing authority infringed Article 25
contains several manifest errors of assessment, as regards          of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-86/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children — Union citizens born in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals and who have not made use of their right of freedom of movement — Fundamental rights)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/21

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
   (Case C-86/12) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children - Union citizens born in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals and who have not made use of their right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)
   2013/C 344/35
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou

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

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and of Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is the direct ascendant of infants who are citizens of the European Union, with the nationality of one of the Member States, and for whom he or she has sole responsibility — No shared family life with another direct ascendant of the children, who is resident in another Member State — Scope of the refusals to allow residence, to grant a residence permit and to grant a work permit — Implications for the genuine enjoyment of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national has sole responsibility for her minor children who are citizens of the European Union, and who have resided with her in that Member State since their birth, without possessing the nationality of that Member State and making use of their right to freedom of movement, in so far as those Union citizens do not satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, or such a refusal does not deprive those citizens of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of the status of European Union citizenship, a matter which is to be determined by the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 in Case C-30/01: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement, in respect of Gibraltar, Directives 67/548/EEC and 87/18/EEC (concerning dangerous chemical substances); 93/12/EEC (concerning liquid fuels); 79/113/EEC, 84/533/EEC, 84/534/EEC, 84/535/EEC, 84/536/EEC, 84/537/EEC, 84/538/EEC, 86/594/EEC and 86/662/EEC (concerning noise emission); 94/62/EC (concerning packaging waste) and 97/35/EC (concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms))

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/5
4.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.           1.    Declares that by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions laid down in:
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                —    Article 5(4)(a) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
                                                                                12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
                                                                                against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
                                                                                sources, in conjunction with paragraph 1(2) and (3) and
                                                                                paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto;
                                                                                —    Article 5(4)(b) of the Directive, in conjunction with
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  Article 4(1)(a) thereof and paragraphs A(1), (2), (4)
                                                                                and (6) of Annex II thereto; and
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                —    Article 5(5) of the Directive,
                        of 2 October 2003
                                                                                the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under the Directive;
in Case C-322/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pol-                     (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2002.
lution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of
Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of
Annex III — Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure
— Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on
a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of
crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and
from fertilisation — Ensuring that the amount of livestock
manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
amount per hectare — Provisions contained in a code of good
agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and                                        of 23 September 2003
procedures for the land application of fertilisers — Obli-
gation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions
                             necessary)                                      in Case C-30/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                         (2003/C 275/10)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                             to implement, in respect of Gibraltar, Directives 67/548/EEC
                                                                             and 87/18/EEC (concerning dangerous chemical substances);
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       93/12/EEC (concerning liquid fuels); 79/113/EEC, 84/533/
                   in the European Court Reports)                            EEC, 84/534/EEC, 84/535/EEC, 84/536/EEC, 84/537/EEC,
                                                                             84/538/EEC, 86/594/EEC and 86/662/EEC (concerning
                                                                             noise emission); 94/62/EC (concerning packaging waste)
                                                                             and 97/35/EC (concerning the deliberate release into the
In Case C-322/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                environment of genetically modified organisms))
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and C. van Hauwaert) v Kingdom
of the Netherlands (Agent: J. G. M. van Bakel): Application for
a declaration that, by failing to adopt the necessary legislative                                      (2003/C 275/11)
and administrative provisions laid down in Article 4 and
Article 5(4) and (5) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters                                            (Language of the case: English)
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and in paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6)
of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of
Annex III thereto, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed                 In Case C-30/01, Commission of the European Communities
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth             (Agent: R.B. Wainwright) supported by Kingdom of Spain
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                    (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) v United Kingdom of Great
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur)                      Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by
and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              D. Wyatt QC): Application for a declaration that by failing,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             in respect of Gibraltar, to adopt the laws, regulations or
on 2 October 2003, in which it:                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/6              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
—   Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the                 —     Council Directive 84/537/EEC of 17 September 1984 on
    approximation of laws, regulations and administrative                     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
    provisions in relation to the classification, packaging and               relating to the permissible sound power level of powered
    labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1967 L 196,                         hand-held concrete breakers and picks (OJ 1984 L 300,
    p; 1), as amended by Commission Directive 97/69/EC of                     p. 156), as amended by Commission Directive 85/409/
    5 December 1997 (OJ 1997 L 343. p; 19);                                   EEC of 11 July 1985 (OJ 1985 L 233, p. 20);
                                                                        —     Council Directive 84/538/EEC of 17 September 1984 on
—   Council Directive 87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on                        the approximation of the laws of the Member States
    the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative                 relating to the permissible sound power level of lawn-
    practice relating to the application of good laboratory                   mowers (OJ 1984 L 300, p. 171), as amended by Council
    practice and the verification of their application for tests              Directive 88/181/EEC of 22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81,
    on chemical substances (OJ 1987 L 15, p; 29);                             p. 71);
                                                                        —     Council Directive 86/594/EEC of 1 December 1986 on
—   Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March 1993 relating                     airborne noise emitted by household appliances (OJ 1986
    to the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (OJ 1993                   L 344, p. 24);
    L 74, p. 81), as amended by Directive 98/70/EC of the
    European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October
                                                                        —     Council Directive 86/662/EEC of 22 December 1986 on
    1998 (OJ 1998 L 350, p. 58);                                              the limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators,
                                                                              rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-
                                                                              loaders (OJ 1986 L 384, p. 1), as amended by Directive
—   Council Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on                       95/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
    the approximation of the laws of the Member States                        of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 168, p. 14);
    relating to the determination of the noise emission of
    construction plant and equipment (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 15),             —     European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
    as amended by Commission Directive 85/405/EEC of                          20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste
    11 July 1985 (OJ 1985 L 233, p. 9);                                       (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10) and
                                                                        —     Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapt-
—   Council Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on                      ing to technical progress for the second time Council
    the approximation of the laws of the Member States                        Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the
    relating to the permissible sound power level of com-                     environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 1997
    pressors (OJ 1984 L 300, p; 123), as amended by                           L 169, p. 72),
    Commission Directive 85/406/EEC of 11 July 1985 (OJ
    1985 L 233, p. 11);
                                                                        or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the
                                                                        adoption of such provisions, the United Kingdom of Great
                                                                        Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
—   Council Directive 84/534/EEC of 17 September 1984 on                under those directives, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
    the approximation of the laws of the Member States                  Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
    relating to the permissible sound power level of tower              R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
    cranes (OJ 1984 L 300, p. 130), as amended by Council               D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
    Directive 87/405/EEC of 25 June 1987 (OJ 1987 L 220,                N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
    p. 60);                                                             gues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                        has given a judgment on 23 September 2003, in which it:
—   Council Directive 84/535/EEC of 17 September 1984 on
    the approximation of the laws of the Member States                  1.    Dismisses the application.
    relating to the permissible sound power level of welding
    generators (OJ 1984 L 300, p. 142), as amended by                   2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
    Commission Directive 85/407/EEC of 11 July 1985 (OJ                       the costs.
    1985 L 233, p. 16);
                                                                        3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
—   Council Directive 84/536/EEC of 17 September 1984 on
    the approximation of the laws of the Member States
    relating to the permissible sound power level of power              (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
    generators (OJ 1984 L 300, p. 149), as amended by
    Commission Directive 85/408/EEC of 11 July 1985 (OJ
    1985 L 233, p. 18);


title: Case T-37/01: Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
19.5.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/29
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 —     for the rest, reverse the decision;
                       of 8 February 2001
                                                                           —     find that ENANTYUM should be refused registration as a
in Case T-240/00: Lars Bo Rasmussen v Commission of                              Community trade mark;
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           —     order Laboratorios Menarini to pay the costs.
(Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Claim for
             damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                         (2001/C 150/57)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Applicant for the Com-          Laboratorios Menarini, S.A.
In Case T-240/00: Lars Bo Rasmussen, official at the Com-                  munity trade mark:
mission of the European Communities, residing in Dalheim
(Luxembourg), represented by M. Karp and J. Choucroun,                     Trade mark:                     Word mark ‘ENANTYUM’ —
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                                                application no. 14720.
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) — application for the                    Goods or services:              Certain goods and services in class
annulment of the decision taken by the Commission in                                                       5 (including anti-inflammatory
compliance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                                non-steroid painkillers).
of 14 April 1999 T-50/98 Rasmussen v Commission [1999]
ECR-SC I-A-63 and II-319 and a claim for damages — the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                      Trade marks raised in           (Decision of 15 December 2000
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;                 the opposition proceed-         in the proceedings in Case R-
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 February 2001, the                  ings:                           222/1999-2)
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                French word mark ‘ENANTONE’
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                                         and Finnish, Swedish and Danish
                                                                                word mark ‘ENANTON’ for phar-
2.   Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                                                         maceutical products in class 5.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.
                                                                           Owner of the opposing           The applicant.
                                                                           marks:
                                                                           Decision         contested      Refusal of the application for
                                                                           before the Board of             registration.
Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Takeda Chemical
                                                                           Appeal:
Industries Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                           Decision of the Board of        Annulment of the decision of the
                          (Case T-37/01)                                   Appeal:                         Opposition Division and dis-
                                                                                missal of the opposition.
                         (2001/C 150/58)
                                                                           Pleas in law relied on:         Misconstruction of Article 43(2)
                                                                                of the Community Trade Mark
                  (Language of the case: French)                                                           Regulation (1) — Absence of any
                                                                                request to provide evidence of use
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                             of the marks — Similarity of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                                                    goods — Likelihood of confusion.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
19 February 2001 by Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. of
Osaka, Japan, represented by Thierry Mollet-Vieville, Avocat,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 fo 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal
     holding the signs ENANTYUM, ENANTONE and ENTAN-
     TON to be similar;


28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/47
       Removal from the register of Case T-214/97 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-149/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/99)                                                         (1999/C 246/101)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 20 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-214/97:              Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Bernard Lavorel v Commission of the European Communities.                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-149/98: Société Générale v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-302/97 and
                          T-303/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 246/100)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-165/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (1999/C 246/102)
By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
T-302/97 and T-303/97: AZ COM. and S.P.R.L. École de                    By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
Maîtrise Automobile v Commission of the European Com-                    of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/98:
                                                                         Grandi Molini SpA v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2003 In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01: Philip Morris International Inc. and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a non-Member State — Action for annulment — Concept of decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Admissibility)

text:
C 70/20                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 January 2003
                         of 23 January 2003
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01
in Case T-53/00: Serena Angioli v Commission of the                         and T-272/01: Philip Morris International Inc. and Others
                    European Communities ( 1)                                      v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a non-
(Officials — Action for annulment — Internal competition                    Member State — Action for annulment — Concept of
for the establishment of members of the temporary staff                     decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of
— Non-inclusion on the list of suitable candidates —                                        Article 230 EC — Admissibility)
       Confidentiality of the work of the selection board)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/32)
                           (2003/C 70/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and
                                                                            T-272/01, Philip Morris International, Inc., established in Rye
                                                                            Brook, New York (United States), represented by É. Morgan de
In Case T-53/00: Serena Angioli, residing in Brussels, represent-           Rivery and J. Derenne, lawyers, with an address for service in
ed by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, with an address for             Luxembourg, applicant in Cases T-377/00 and T-272/01,
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                   R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-
Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for                   Salem, North Carolina (United States), RJR Acquisition Corp.,
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 May 1999 not                   established in Wilmington, New Castle, Delaware (United
to include the applicant on the list of suitable candidates in              States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, established in Jersey
Internal Competition COM/TA/2/98 for the establishment of                   City, New Jersey (United States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
members of the temporary staff, and for annulment of all                    International, Inc., established in Dover, Kent, Delaware
subsequent measures taken by the selection board for the                    (United States), represented by P. Lomas, Solicitor, and
competition and by the appointing authority — the Court                     O. Brouwer, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-                  bourg, applicants in Cases T-379/00 and T-260/01, Japan
Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;                    Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            P. Lomas, Solicitor, and O. Brouwer, Lawyer, with an address
has given a judgment on 23 January 2003, the operative part                 for service in Luxembourg, against in Case T-380/00, v
of which is as follows:                                                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
                                                                            X. Lewis and C. Ladenburger, and, subsequently, C. Docksey
                                                                            and Ladenburger), supported by European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                            R. Passos and A. Baas), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
1.     The application is dismissed;                                        Lapuerta), French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues), Italian
                                                                            Republic (Agent: U. Leanza), Portuguese Republic (Agents:
                                                                            L. Fernandes and Â. Cortesão de Seiça Neves), Republic of
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.                              Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin), in Cases T-377/
                                                                            00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01, Federal
                                                                            Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma),
                                                                            Hellenic Republic (Agent: V. Kontolaimos), in Cases T-260/01
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.                                                   and T-272/01, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: in Cases
                                                                            T-260/01 and T-272/01, H. Sevenster and, in Case T-379/00,
                                                                            Sevenster and J. van Bakel): Applications for annulment of two
                                                                            decisions by the Commission to commence legal proceedings
                                                                            against the applicants before a federal court in the United
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 70/21
States of America, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A. W. H. Meij,
Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a
judgment on 15 January 2003, in which it:                                                             of 15 January 2003
1.     Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
                                                                             in Case T-171/01: Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécom-
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and        munications en Europe (IDATE) v Commission of the
       severally, the costs incurred by the Commission;                                           European Communities (1)
3.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecom-
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001 and C 3 of 5.1.2002.                               munications Networks Programme — Contract relating
                                                                             to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN —
                                                                                Allowable costs)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/34)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 12 December 2002                                                       (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-110/01: Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 — Application for                          In Case T-171/01, Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécommuni-
a figurative Community mark including the word ‘HUBERT’                      cations en Europe (IDATE), established in Montpellier (France),
— Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion                     represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, with an address for service in
        — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                       Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Shotter and J.-L. Fagnart):
                                                                             Application for a declaration by the Court of First Instance
                             (2003/C 70/33)                                  that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for the
                                                                             purposes of the contract concluded between the Commission
                      (Language of the case: French)                         and the applicant in the context of the Trans-European
                                                                             Telecommunications Networks Programme, covers the whole
                                                                             of the costs invoiced by the applicant’s subcontractors under
                                                                             that contract and, in the alternative, for compensation for the
In Case T-110/01: Vedial SA, a company established in Ludres,                loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the
France, represented by T. van Innis and G. Glas, Lawyers, with
                                                                             breaches committed by the Commission in the performance
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
                                                                             of that contract, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
Hamonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
(OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly), the other party to the proceedings
                                                                             A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
before the board of appeal of the Office for Hamonisation in                 on 15 January 2003, in which it:
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being France
Distribution, a company established in Emerainville, France —
appeal against the decision of the first board of appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks                 1.     Declares that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for
and designs) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1) — the                              the purposes of the contract at issue, covers the whole of the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of                               costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under that
M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                        contract.
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                             2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1.     Dismissed the action;
2.     Ordered each party to bear its costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.


title: Case C-231/10: Action brought on 10 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/27

         Action brought on 10 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-231/10)
   2010/C 179/43
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 16 January 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19.


title: Case T-191/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/31

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council
   (Case T-191/14)
   2014/C 151/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor and B. Hartnett, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               Annul Articles 1 and 4 of the Council Regulation (EU) 1387/2013 (1) of 17th December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Council Regulation (EU) 1344/20111 to the extent that it deprived the applicant of its rights to the entitlement of the benefit of three duty suspensions under former TARIC Codes 2918.2900.80, 3811.2900.10 and 3811.9000.30 on the grounds that it contains manifest errors in law and substance and was also adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and safeguards;

               —

               Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors in law and substance when determining that the applicable conditions were satisfied for terminating the three autonomous duty suspensions by failing to properly apply the test for establishing the existence of sufficient quantities of similar or substitutable quantities of products made in the European Union as well as the criterion of identical, equivalent or substitute products.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that that the defendant breached essential procedural requirements and safeguards put in place to ensure that the procedural rules, requiring opposing companies to reply within due time and also to prevent misleading and inaccurate information being provided in objections to the continuation of autonomous duty suspension, are properly applied and implemented.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-239/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Non-transposition of Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance and direct life assurance)

text:
4.3.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 63/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 16 December 1999                                                         of 16 December 1999
                                                                           in Case C-239/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-198/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                                            ties v French Republic (1)
from the Industrial Tribunal, Bristol): G. Everson and
T.J. Barrass v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                          Bell Lines Ltd (1)                               (Failure to fulfil obligations — Non-transposition of Direc-
                                                                           tives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC — Direct insurance other
                                                                                than life assurance and direct life assurance)
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Employees residing and employed in a State other than that                                            (2000/C 63/09)
in which the employer has its principal establishment —
                       Guarantee institution)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2000/C 63/08)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case C-239/98: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-198/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v French Republic
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Industrial                     (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance) — application
Tribunal, Bristol, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling                for a declaration that, by failing to adopt (or bring into force)
in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between                    and communicate all the laws, regulations and administrative
G. Everson, T.J. Barrass and Secretary of State for Trade and              provisions necessary in order to comply fully with Council
Industry, Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation) — on the interpretation          Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of
of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                 direct insurance other than life assurance and amending
relating to the protection of employees in the event of the                Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life
insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23) — the                  insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and with Council
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the            Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordi-
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                   nation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rappor-             relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
teur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                   79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive)
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) and, in particular, by not transposing
a judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it has ruled:                     those directives with regard to mutual societies governed by
                                                                           the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                           fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under those
Where the employees adversely affected by the insolvency of their          directives — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
employer were employed in a Member State by the branch established         D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
in that State of a company incorporated under the laws of another          Almeida (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann,
Member State, where that company has its registered office and in          Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
which it was placed in liquidation, the competent institution, under       Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 Decem-
Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on            ber 1999, in which it:
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
employer, for payment to those employees of outstanding claims is               administrative provisions necessary in order to comply fully
that of the State within whose territory they were employed.                    with Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
                                                                                coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and
                                                                                amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                      non-life insurance Directive) and with Council Directive
                                                                                92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct
                                                                                life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and
                                                                                90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) and, in particular,
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.3.2000
    by not transposing those directives with regard to mutual societies    2. The derogation laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive
    governed by the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has              79/7/EEC is not applicable to a benefit such as that paid under
    failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under             Regulations 2(5), 2(6) and 3(1) of the Social Fund Winter Fuel
    those directives;                                                          Payment Regulations 1998.
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (Third Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                        of 16 December 1999
                       of 16 December 1999                                 in Case C-26/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
in Case C-382/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Sec-                                       to transpose Directive 95/30/EC)
retary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry
                               Taylor (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/11)
(Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women
in matters of social security — Grant of a winter fuel                                         (Language of the case: French)
             payment — Link with pensionable age)
                           (2000/C 63/10)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: English)                        In Case C-26/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of
In Case C-382/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              Luxembourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declar-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court                     ation that, by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission
of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
(Divisional Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling               to comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                   1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
Queen and Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John           90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related
Henry Taylor — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 7(1)(a)             to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual
of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the                   Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment             89/391/EEC) (OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41), the Grand Duchy of
for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6,              Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
p. 24) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintg-               EC Treaty — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
en, President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm                 Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for                 on 16 December 1999, in which it:
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                        1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
                                                                               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
1. Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                   comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
    1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal           adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
    treatment for men and women in matters of social security must             on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
    be interpreted as meaning that a winter fuel payment, such as              biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
    that made under Regulations 2(5), 2(6) and 3(1) of the Social              meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Grand
    Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 1998, is covered by that              Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    directive.                                                                 Article 2(1) of that Directive;


title: Case T-495/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Belfass v Council (Public procurement — Community tender procedure — Obvious clerical error — Award to the tender offering best value for money — Abnormally low tender — Article 139(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 — Plea of illegality — Specifications — Admissibility)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Belfass v Council
   (Case T-495/04) (1)

   (Public procurement - Community tender procedure - Obvious clerical error - Award to the tender offering best value for money - Abnormally low tender - Article 139(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Plea of illegality - Specifications - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 171/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Belfass SPRL (Forest, Belguim) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 October 2004 to reject both the tenders submitted by the applicant under tender procedure UCA-033/04 and, secondly, for compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the Council's conduct.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 October 2004 to reject the tenders of Belfass SPRL submitted under tender procedure UCA-033/04, in so far as that decision rejected Belfass' offer with respect to Lot No 2;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-149/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Dover v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Review of the use of allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Justification of expenditure — Recovery of undue payments)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Dover v Parliament
   (Case T-149/09) (1)

   (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Review of the use of allowances - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Justification of expenditure - Recovery of undue payments)
   2011/C 145/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Densmore Ronald Dover (Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, United Kindgom) (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. French, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision D(2009) 4639 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant by way of parliamentary allowances.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision D(2009) 4639 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 as regards the recovery of the sum of GBP 193 001;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament and Mr Densmore Ronald Dover each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-143/04: Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Antonietta Camurato Carfagno against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/18

         Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Antonietta Camurato Carfagno against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-143/04)
   (2004/C 190/29)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 April 2004 by Antonietta Camurato Carfagno, resident in Braine-L'Alleud (Belgium), represented by Carlos Mourato, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Appeal Assessor of 9 April 2003 relating to the applicant's career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 December 2003 rejecting the applicant's complaint (R/353/03);

               —

               take formal note that the applicant reserves the right to advance an additional plea alleging misuse of powers on the part of the assessors and the Appointing Authority;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, and in particular the expenses of retaining an address for service, travel and subsistence expenses and the fees and expenses of lawyers.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant challenges her career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of her application, the applicant submits that the assessments set out in her CDR are manifestly flawed having regard to several acts and events which took place during and after the period of reference and to comments made by the assessor and countersigning officer which contradict the mark given and its meaning. The applicant further considers that the CDR infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations in that the new system of assessment can result in the under-assessment of officials, as the applicant considers has occurred in her case, particularly given the requirement that there be an average mark of 14/20.
   The applicant further alleges:

               —

               a manifest error of assessment;

               —

               an infringement of the principle of equal treatment; and

               —

               an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-351/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/39

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council
   (Case T-351/13)
   2013/C 252/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 (1) of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 of 10 October 2011 as far as it concerns the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as those of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 2 (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) or Art. 296 (2) TFEU in so far as the Council made manifest errors of assessment or infringed its obligation to state reasons when it selected Brazil as an analogue country for the purposes of determining the normal value. The Council wrongly found that or failed to reason why there is sufficient competition on the Brazilian market, in particular with regard to the degree of competition between domestic producers and with regard to the degree of competition exerted by imports.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 2 (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 or Art. 296 (2) TFEU in so far as the Council made a manifest error of assessment or infringed its obligation to state reasons when rejecting a claim for an adjustment to the normal value to account for the effect of a 14 % import duty on the product concerned in the analogue country Brazil.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Art. 9 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in so far as the Council made a manifest error of assessment by, when applying the ‘lesser duty rule’, comparing the dumping margin established in the contested regulation with the injury elimination level established in the original investigation in 2005 instead of establishing a new injury elimination level.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 112, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case C-106/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/54

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza
   (Case C-106/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 225/101
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale

      Defendants: Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Articles 17 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to property — National legislation allowing local administrative authorities to prohibit an owner from selling a part of his building without prior authorisation

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013.


title: Case T-285/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/36

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
   (Case T-285/14)
   2014/C 223/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl (Düsseldorf, Germany), Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn), BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH (Freital), BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (Siegen), BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH (Lippendorf), Buderus Edelstahl Schmiedetechnik GmbH (Wetzlar), ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH (Riesa), Friedr. Lohmann GmbH Werk für Spezial- & Edelstähle (Witten), Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH (Krefeld), Peiner Träger GmbH (Peine), ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg), ThyssenKrupp Rasselstein GmbH (Andernach), ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen), Pruna Betreiber GmbH (Grünwald), ThyssenKrupp Gerlach GmbH (Homburg), ThyssenKrupp Federn und Stabilisatoren GmbH (Hagen), Salzgitter Mannesmann Rohr Sachsen GmbH (Zeithain), HSP Hoesch Spundwand und Profil GmbH (Dortmund), Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr), Mülheim Pipecoatings GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr), Salzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes Deutschland GmbH (Remscheid), Salzgitter Hydroforming GmbH & Co. KG (Crimmitschau), Salzgitter Mannesmann Line Pipe GmbH (Siegen), Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH (Ilsenburg) (represented by: A. Reuter, C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, K. Kindereit, R. Busch, A. Hohler and T. Woltering, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73;

               —

               join the present procedure and the procedure relating to Germany’s action before the General Court, seeking the annulment of the contested decision (lodging of the application on 21 March 2014);
               in the alternative: order that access be made available to the file in the proceedings referred to relating to Germany’s action;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the special compensation regime provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang ernererbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) does not involve an advantage for energy-intensive users in the steel industry in general and for applicants 2 to 24 in particular.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No selective advantage

                           —

                           The applicants also claim that there is a fortiori no selective advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU for the applicants in the special compensation regime.

               3.

               Third plea in law: No use of State resources

                           —

                           In addition, the applicants maintain that the special compensation regime does not constitute support ‘granted by a Member State or through State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: No distortion of competition

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the special compensation regime does not distort competition in the European Union.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: No effect on trade between the Member States

                           —

                           The applicants further state that the special compensation regime also does not affect trade between Member States.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: A cessation or substantial reduction of the special compensation regime infringes the applicants’ fundamental rights

                           —

                           The applicants submit that not only would the limits of Article 107 TFEU clearly defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union be exceeded upon a classification of the special compensation regime as aid or a substantial reduction of the special compensation regime, but the fundamental requirement of substantive equity of charges would also be infringed. An abolition or substantial reduction of the special compensation regime would therefore also infringe the applicants’ fundamental rights, particularly their rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: the special compensation regime is covered by the Commission decision of 22 May 2002

                           —

                           The applicants also claim that, by its decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission expressly stated that the EEG and its ‘compensation regimes’ did not fall to be categorised as aid. (1) That decision also covers the special compensation regime.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment and insufficient preliminary examination

                           —

                           The applicants also allege that the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard

                           —

                           The applicants argue also that the Commission should have consulted them in any event before adopting a decision with such serious legal effects.

      (1)  Commission letter of 22 May 2002, C(2002) 1887 fin./State aid NN 27/2000- Germany


title: Case C-68/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2013 — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2013 — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-68/13)
   2013/C 114/39
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Markus Weiss

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used in the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time limit to be calculated?

               3.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-469/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-118/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 68/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.3.2002
the European Communities in case T-117/00 between Procter                —     in failing to assess whether the specific pattern (speckles
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the                           and/or layers) of the colours was already part of the usual
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was                           get up(s) of the tablets on the market at the relevant date
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   and, if not, whether the difference is perceptible, rendering
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,                           it apt to confer distinctive character on the Marks.
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 21.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the judgment
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
      and on appeal.                                                     Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
                                                                         Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                         19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                         of First Instance of the European Communities in case
                                                                         T-118/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
                                                                         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                             Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case C-469/01 P)
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
the following respects:                                                                            (2002/C 68/04)
—     in deeming it unnecessary to decide whether the distinc-
      tive character of the Mark should be assessed by reference         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
      to the date on which the application for registration is           2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      filed or the date of actual registration;                          the European Communities in case T-118/00 between Procter
                                                                         & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
—     in holding that the level of attention given by the average
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      consumer to the shape and colours of washing machine
                                                                         ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
      and dishwasher tablets is not high;
                                                                         established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
                                                                         represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
—     in deeming it appropriate to ascertain whether the Marks
      applied for will enable the members of the public targeted
      to distinguish the products from those having a different          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      trade origin when they come to select a product for
      purchase;                                                          —     annul the judgment
—     in holding that the slightly rounded corners of the tablet         —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
      are not likely to be perceived by the average consumer as                and on appeal.
      a distinctive feature of the shape claimed, capable of
      distinguishing it from other washing machine or
      dishwasher tablets and in failing to assess whether such
      slightly rounded corners were already part of the usual            Pleas in law and main arguments
      get up(s) of the tablets on the market at the relevant date
      and, if not, whether the difference is perceptible, rendering
      it apt to confer distinctive character on the Marks;
                                                                         See case C-468/01 P.
—     in failing to assess whether the colours as applied to
      Marks were already part of the usual get up(s) of the              (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 21.
      tablets on the market at the relevant date and, if not,
      whether the difference is perceptible, rendering it apt to
      confer distinctive character on the Marks;