title: Case T-118/99: Action brought on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/36              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.8.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos,
                                                                        established in Vantaa, Finland, represented by Tuomas Saraste,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 8 March 1999                  lawyer, and Jouni Alanen, oikeustieteen lisensiaatti, with an
    (SG - 99 D/1697);                                                   address for service at Asianajotoimisto Asianajotalo ANPR Oy,
                                                                        Stenbäckinkatu 26, FIN-00250 Helsinki.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Annul the Commission’s decision finding that the system
                                                                             of landing charges applied by the Ilmailulaitos infringes
The applicant company contests the decision rejecting both                   Article 86 of the EC Treaty, and
the complaint lodged against Renault France, Renault Nether-
lands and Renault Autocenter concerning the barriers to                 — Order the Commission to pay the Ilmailulaitos’s costs
parallel imports by agents as well as a request for withdrawal               together with any interest for fate payment.
of the exemption by category under Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 for Renault’s distribution contracts.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
                                                                        The Commission in its decision infringed essential procedural
                                                                        requirements contained in Community law, in particular in
— The defendant misapplied the principle of Community
                                                                        Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February
    interest.
                                                                        1962 and Article 4 of Regulation 99/63, by basing its decision
                                                                        on an infringement which was not in the statement of
— The Commission purportedly did not examine thoroughly                 objections it made to the Ilmailulaitos in the case.
    all the matters of fact and law brought to its attention.
    More specifically, the defendant cannot rely on the mere
    fact that the practices which are claimed to he contrary to         In assessing the Commission’s error, regard must be had to the
    the Treaty ceased in order to decide not to take any further        purpose of the statement of objections of providing an
    action, in the absence of any Community interest, on a              undertaking suspected of infringing the rules on competition
    complaint denouncing such practices.                                with all the information which it needs in order to be able to
                                                                        defend itself effectively before the adoption of the Com-
— The applicant claims that in the present case there has               mission’s final decision in the matter. An effective right of
    been misuse of powers. It states in this respect that the           defence, which is a fundamental principle of Community law,
    institutions are bound to observe competition law without           also requires that the Commission formulate its statement of
    taking into account political exigencies.                           objections clearly and unambiguously.
As for delivery deadlines, which according to the Commission            The Commission also infringed essential procedural require-
are technically justified because of the popularity of the              ments by basing — with respect to airports other than
Renault Scenic, the applicant claims that 45 % of the orders it         Helsinki-Vantaa — the assessment of the trace criterion in its
handles are for models other than the Scenic. In any event, the         decision on different facts from those on which it had based
defendant failed to ascertain whether the deadlines in question         its assessment in its statement of objections. The Ilmailulaitos
are discriminatory. There is a rebuttable presumption that              thus had no adequate opportunity to defend itself in this
there is compartmentalisation of the market by the systematic           respect either.
use of deadline extensions as a deterrent against parallel
imports.
                                                                        Action brought on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti
                                                                        Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos
                                                                                munities
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-116/99)                                                         (Case T-118/99)
                        (1999/C 226/64)                                                         (1999/C 226/65)
                  (Language of the case: Finnish)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/37
European Communities on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                  Action brought on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi                       Commission of the European Communities
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service
ir Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36, Rue de                                       (Case T-119/99)
Wiltz.
                                                                                (1999/C 226/66)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
— Annul the decision not to admit Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina
     to the oral tests in Competition COM/B/18/96.                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 European Communities on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer
                                                                         residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                         of the Bar of The Hague, having an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare internal competition COM/LA/2/89 void, or in any
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of candidates             event annul the decision of the selection board, as notified
admitted to the oral test in Competition COM/B/18/96 for                     to the applicant by letter of 15 February 1999. not to
transfer from Category C to Category B, grades 5 and 4.                      include the applicant on the list of suitable candidates;
According to the Notice of Competition, the 120 candidates
achieving the highest marks in the written test would be
invited to take the oral test, provided that they achieved the           — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
pass mark required in the written test.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant stases that the representative of the Chairman of
the Selection Board informed her that she had been awarded a             The applicant, who was at the time a temporary Commission
mark of 26 out of 50 but that candidates had to have a                   official (interpreter), was unsuccessful in the above internal
minimum mark of 33 to be included amongst the 120 best                   competition and was dismissed.
candidates. Consequently, although she had been awarded the
pass mark, she was told that her marks were not sufficient for           His action against the decision of the selection board was
her to be admitted to the oral tests.                                    upheld (Case T-43/91). The decision dismissing him was
                                                                         set aside on the ground that it was based on an invalid
                                                                         selection-board decision (Case T-51/91).
The applicant lodged a complaint, seeking annulment of the
decision not to admit her to the oral test, of the list drawn up         The Court of First Instance did not annul the internal
on the basis of the written tests, of Section VI, paragraph (C),         competition as such, but stated in paragraph 65 of its judgment
of the Notice of Competition and of the final list of successful         in Case T-43/91 that Mr Hoyer’s rights would be properly
candidates in the competition.                                           safeguarded ‘if the appointing authority were to seek an
                                                                         equitable solution for him’.
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         The applicant objected to the re-opening and/or continuation
                                                                         of the internal competition.
— breach of Article 28(d) of the Staff Regulations applicable
     to officials and of Article 5(2) and (5) of Annex III thereto       Contrary to its undertakings, however, the Commission did
     (Competitions) by Section VI, paragraph (C), of Notice of           re-open and continue the internal competition. In protest, the
     Competition COM/B/18/96; and                                        applicant participated in the tests, but was unsuccessful.
— breach and misapplication of Section VI, paragraph (A),                The grounds of his application for a declaration annulling the
     final subparagraph, of the Notice of Internal Competition           internal competition are as follows:
     relating to the said competition.
                                                                         — infringement of the principle of equality and breach of
                                                                             essential procedural requirements;
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment,
failure to state reasons and misuse of powers.                           — breach of Article 233 EC (ex Article 176);
                                                                         — breach of express agreements.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 February 2014 in Case E-12/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/111/EC — Failure to implement — Failure to notify)

text:
               12.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/14

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 11 February 2014
   in Case E-12/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/111/EC — Failure to implement — Failure to notify)
   (2015/C 49/07)
   In Case E-12/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to implement correctly Article 1 paragraphs 15 to 18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23 to 29, 36, 37, 39 to 42 and Article 2(5) and (6) of the Act referred to at points 14, 16e and 31 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements and crisis management), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, and by failing to notify the Authority of the text of such measures, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 11 February 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to implement correctly Article 1 paragraphs 15 to 18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23 to 28, 36, 37, 39 to 42 and Article 2 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Act referred to at points 14, 16e and 31 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements and crisis management), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, and by failing to inform the Authority of the text of such measures, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C-218/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany): Henkel KGaA (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Grounds for refusal to register — Three-dimensional shape-of-product mark — Distinctive character

text:
C 85/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              3.4.2004
For the purposes of determining whether the ground for refusal set           First, the prior authorisation procedure must be readily accessible and
out in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 applies to such a mark, it        capable of being completed within a reasonable time and, if it leads
is irrelevant whether or not there are synonyms capable of designating       to a refusal, the decision of refusal must be open to challenge before
the same characteristics of the goods or services referred to in the         the courts. Secondly, refusal to authorise marketing must be based on
application for registration.                                                a detailed assessment of the risk to public health, based on the most
                                                                             reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of
                                                                             international research.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 5 February 2004
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-95/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the tribunal de grande instance de Paris): John Greenham                                             of 12 February 2004
                          v Léonard Abel (1)
                                                                             in Case C-218/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —                            the Bundespatentgericht (Germany): Henkel KGaA (1)
Prohibition on marketing foodstuffs to which vitamins and
minerals have been added — Justification — Proportionality)
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
                            (2004/C 85/04)                                   104/EEC — Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Grounds for
                                                                             refusal to register — Three-dimensional shape-of-product
                                                                                mark — Distinctive character
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-95/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) for a                                       in the European Court Reports)
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against John Greenham and Léonard Abel, on the
interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken                   In Case C-218/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                    EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                      ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by Henkel
judgment on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:                          KGaA, on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of
                                                                             First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                             approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they            marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the marketing                composed of C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the
without prior authorisation of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and          Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
marketed in another Member State, where nutrients such as vitamins           and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General:
or minerals have been added thereto other than those whose use has           D. Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal
been declared lawful in the first Member State, provided that certain        Administrator, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in
conditions are satisfied.                                                    which it ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/5
1.    For three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the packaging                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of goods which are packaged in trade for reasons linked to the
      very nature of the goods, the packaging thereof must be
      assimilated to the shape of the goods, so that that packaging
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
      may constitute the shape of the goods within the meaning of
      Article 3(1)(e) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
      21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
      States relating to trade marks and may, where appropriate,                                     of 12 February 2004
      serve to designate characteristics of the packaged goods,
      including their quality, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of
      that directive.
                                                                              in Case C- 330/01 P: Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    For three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the packaging
      of goods which are packaged in trade for reasons linked to the          (Agriculture — EAGGF — Cancellation and request for
      very nature of the product, their distinctive character within the      repayment of financial assistance — Regulation (EEC)
      meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 must be                  No 4253/88 — Article 24(1) and (2) — Obligation on the
      assessed by reference to the perception of the average consumer         Commission to request the Member State concerned to
      of such goods, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably            submit observations before cancelling financial assistance)
      observant and circumspect. Such a trade mark must enable such
      a consumer to distinguish the product concerned from those
      of other undertakings without conducting an analytical or                                         (2004/C 85/06)
      comparative examination and without paying particular atten-
      tion.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3.    The distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of
      Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 may be assessed solely on           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the basis of national trade usage, without any need for other                              in the European Court Reports)
      administrative investigations to be undertaken in order to
      determine whether and to what extent identical trade marks
      have been registered or have been refused registration in other
      Member States of the European Union.
                                                                              In Case C-330/01 P, Hortiplant SAT established in Amposta
      The fact that an identical trade mark has been registered in one        (Spain), represented by C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-
      Member State for identical goods or services may be taken into          Tapia Rivas: APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of
      consideration by the competent authority of another Member              First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber)
      State among all the circumstances which that authority must             of 14 June 2001 in Case T-143/99 Hortiplant v Commission
      take into account in assessing the distinctive character of a trade     [2001] ECR II-1665, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
      mark, but it is not decisive regarding the latter’s decision to         the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of
      grant or refuse registration of a trade mark.                           the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio, assisted by
                                                                              J. Guerra Fernández) with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                              bourg, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha
      On the other hand, the fact that a trade mark has been                  Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-
      registered in one Member State for certain goods or services can        P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
      have no bearing on the examination by the competent trade               Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
      mark registration authority of another Member State of the              given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it:
      distinctive character of a similar trade mark for goods or services
      similar to those for which the first trade mark was registered.
                                                                              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.    Orders Hortiplant to pay the costs.
(1 ) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case C-562/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2011 — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2011 — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-562/11)
   2012/C 39/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA)

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Question referred

   Must a penalty be imposed on an exporter who makes a request for a refund, providing a correct explanation of the facts relevant to the grant of the export refund, although no right to a refund actually exists in relation to the relevant exportation? (1)

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation No 495/97 of 18 March (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12)


title: Case T-148/00: Action brought on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
In support of his claim, the applicant asserts:                          —     order that the costs be borne by the defendant.
—    that it is not appropriate to take into consideration the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     fact that the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91
     of the Staff Regulations were not complied with, since,             The applicant claims that Article 1 of the contested decision
     first, the fact that the interview before the selection board       should be annulled in so far as it only declares Article 30(3) of
     in competition COM/B/612 did not take place and that
                                                                         Greek Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992 (Greek Government
     the applicant did not attend the medical examination                Gazette No A’ 70 of 23.4.1992) as incompatible with the
     specifically referable to that competition gave rise to an
                                                                         common market.
     overwhelming state of uncertainty and, second, what
     happened in the present case amounts a defect rendering
     the contested decisions not voidable but absolutely void;           This application is based on the following grounds:
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
—    that the applicant did not sit the test corresponding to                  on the part of the Commission in concluding that
     competition COM/B/612 but that relating to competition                    Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92, imposing on ginning
     COM/B/611, and that the medical examination which he                      plants the obligation to pay to the Greek Cotton Board a
     attended and passed satisfactorily was expressly referable                levy amounting to 1 % of the total purchase price paid to
     to grade B1 principal assistants;                                         the growers per kilogram of delivered unginned cotton
                                                                               grown in Greece, is consonant with the market organis-
                                                                               ation.
—    that it is one thing to enter into service on the date
     proposed and quite another thing to accept the grade                —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
     proposed.                                                                 on the part of the Commission in failing to declare
                                                                               Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 as incompatible with the
                                                                               common market.
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error on the part of the
                                                                               Commission in failing to analyse separately the compati-
                                                                               bility of Law 2040/92 in relation with the EC State aids
                                                                               discipline.
                                                                         —     In the contested decision, the Commission totally failed
                                                                               to provide sufficient reasoning for refusing to analyse the
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic Union                         compatibility of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 under the
of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the Commission                         EC State Aid rules.
                 of the European Communities
                                                                         —     Alternatively, the Commission has committed a violation
                                                                               of an essential procedural requirement by taking an
                          (Case T-148/00)                                      extraordinarily long time in concluding the formal investi-
                                                                               gation procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
                          (2000/C 259/44)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 63, p. 27.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters, represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Vassilis Akritidis and Juan                                      (Case T-152/00)
José Gutiérrez Gisbert of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/45)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of
     20 July 1999 (1) on an aid scheme applied in Greece to              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     cotton by the Greek Cotton Board, in so far as it only              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     declares Article 30(3) of Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992,              European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamani-
     and not Article 30(1) as well, as incompatible with the             dou, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersand-
     common market; and                                                  en, of the Brussels Bar.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 1996 in Case C-78/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen v. Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH (Brussels Convention - Interpretation of Article 27 (2) - Recognition of a decision - Definition of a defendant in default of appearance)

text:
 21 . 12 . 96           EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 388/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                Article 27 (2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                         (Fifth Chamber)                              jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
                                                                      commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of
                       of 10 October 1996                             9 October 1978 relating to the accession of the Kingdom
in Case C-78/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): Bernardus Hendrikman                 Britain and Northern Ireland, applies to judgments given
 and Maria Feyen v. Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH (')                   against a defendant who was not duly served with, or
                                                                      notified of, the document instituting proceedings in
 (Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Article 27 (2) —            sufficient time and who was not validly represented during
Recognition of a decision — Definition of a defendant in              those proceedings, albeit the judgments given were not
                      default of appearance)                          given in default of appearance because someone
                          ( 96/C 388/01 )                             purporting to represent the defendant appeared before the
                                                                      court first seised.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                       (•) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-78/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968                                         (Fifth Chamber)
on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil                                   of 17 October 1996
and commercial matters from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) for a                in Case C-64/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling by the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg): Konservenfabrik
court between Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen,                   Lubella    Friedrich      Büker    GmbH     &    Co.   KG     v.
and Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH — on the                                                 Hauptzollamt Cottbus ( ! )
interpretation of Article 27 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and Article 29 of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and               (Common organization of the market in fruit and
the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                       vegetables — Protective measures — Sour cherries)
matters ( OJ No L 299, 31 . 12 . 1972, p. 32 ), as amended                                       ( 96/C 388/02 )
by the Convention of 9 October 1978 relating to the
accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                                 (Language of the case: German)
( OJ No L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 1 and, for the amended
text, p. 77), the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber, C.                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and M.                         published in the European Court Reports)
Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
on 10 October 1996 , the operative part of which is as               In Case C-64/95 : reference by the Finanzgericht des Landes
follows :                                                            Brandenburg ( Finance Court of Land Brandenburg ) for


title: Case T-263/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Mülhens v OHIM — Conceria Toska (TOSKA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TOSKA — Earlier national word mark TOSCA — Relative grounds for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Mülhens v OHIM — Conceria Toska (TOSKA)
   (Case T-263/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TOSKA - Earlier national word mark TOSCA - Relative grounds for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 199/52)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Capostagno and O. Montalto, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Conceria Toska Srl (Corsico, Italy) (represented by: G. Cimolino, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2003 (Case R-369/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Conceria Toska Srl
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Single and continuous infringement — Concept of an undertaking — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity — Duration)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Concept of an undertaking - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity - Duration)
   2011/C 226/49
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Gosselin Group NV, formerly Gosselin World Wide Moving NV (Deurne, Belgium) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and S. De Keer, lawyers) (Case T-208/08); and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Van hove, lawyer) (Case T-209/08)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 5810 final of 24 July 2009, and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               In Case T-208/08, annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) in so far as that decision finds that Gosselin Group NV participated in the infringement of Article 81(1) EC from 30 October 1993 to 14 November 1996;

               2.

               Sets the amount of fine imposed on Gosselin Group in Article 2 of Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 5810 final of 24 July 2009, at EUR 2,32 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               In Case T-209/08, annuls Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Decision C(2009) 5810, in so far as it relates to Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje;

               5.

               In Case T-208/08, orders each party to bear its own costs;

               6.

               In Case T-209/08, orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 1999 in Case T-42/98: Maria Paola Sabbatucci v European Parliament (Officials - Application for annulment of decisions of the Committee of Tellers - Interpretation of the electoral rules of the European Parliament - Exclusion of the applicant from the persons elected to the Staff Committee)

text:
C 352/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 October 1999
                         of 14 October 1999
                                                                          in Case T-42/98: Maria Paola Sabbatucci v European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
in Case T-309/27: The Bavarian Lager Company Ltd v                        (Officials — Application for annulment of decisions of the
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                        Committee of Tellers — Interpretation of the electoral rules
                                                                          of the European Parliament — Exclusion of the applicant
                                                                                from the persons elected to the Staff Committee)
(Transparency — Access to information — Commission
Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to                                              (1999/C 352/61)
Commission documents — Scope of the exception relating to
protection of the public interest — Draft reasoned opinion
  under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC))                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-42/98: Maria Paola Sabbatucci, an official at the
                                                                          European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                           (1999/C 352/60)                                Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea Cevese, of the Vicenza Bar,
                                                                          Chambers of Morresi Law Office, 67 Avenue des Nerviens,
                                                                          Brussels, against European Parliament (Agents: Antonio Caiola
                                                                          and Evelyn Waldherr) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decisions of the Committee of Tellers of 27 January and
                    (Language of the case: English)                       17 February 1998 in so far as she was excluded from the
                                                                          persons elected to the Staff Committee — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, acting on
                                                                          behalf of the President, V. Tiili and J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair,
In Case T-309/97 The Bavarian Lager Company Ltd, whose                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
registered office is in Lancashire, United Kingdom, represented           7 October 1999, in which it:
by Stephen Hornsby, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of André Marc, 36-58 Rue                       1. Dismisses the application.
Charles Martel v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Carmel O’Reilly and Ulrich Wölker and, at the                    2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
hearing, Xavier Lewis), supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agents: John Collins and, at the           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
hearing, Jessica Simor) — application for the annulment of a
Commission decision of 18 September 1997 refusing the
applicant access to a draft reasoned opinion drawn up by
the Commission under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 226 EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 14 October 1999, in which it:                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 October 1999
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                          in Case T-119/98: André Hecq v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2. Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, those
     of the defendant;
                                                                          (Officials — Mission expenses — Calculation of daily
                                                                          subsistance allowance — Duration of the mission — Journey
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                          in private car)
     Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 352/62)
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-119/98: André Hecq, an official of the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, residing in Bonlez (Belgium)
                                                                          represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
                                                                          Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against Commission of the


title: Case T-8/99: Action brought on 14 January 1999 by Laurence Matic-Van de Vloet against European Parliament

text:
19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/7
     — Decision No 425/98, registered by the Secretariat-                Action brought on 14 January 1999 by Laurence Matic-
         General on 28 April 1998, dismissing Mrs Rudolph’s                        Van de Vloet against European Parliament
         complaint of 10 April 1998;
                                                                                (Case T-8/99)
     — Decision No 00037/IX.A6 of 7 December 1998 termi-
         nating the applicant’s employment as from 1 February                                    (1999/C 174/16)
         1999;
— Order the European Commission to pay the costs, includ-                                  (Language of the case: French)
     ing the fees and disbursements of the applicant’s lawyer.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance on 14 January 1999 by Laurence
                                                                         Matic-Van de Vloet, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
The applicant, at present an official in Grade C 4, was                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
appointed as a probationary official on 1 July 1995 and was
established on 1 January 1996. According to the applicant,               — Annul the implied decision rejecting the request made by
during the prescribed medical examination it did not occur to                the applicant on 5 December 1997 that the appointing
her to bring to the doctor’s attention the existence of a                    authority should take all appropriate measures concerning
pathological condition liable to cast doubt on her physical                  the disclosure of information from her personal file to a
fitness.                                                                     third party and to a Belgian judicial authority;
                                                                         — Annul the decision of 23 November 1998, of which the
By the decision of 17 November 1997, drafted in French and                   applicant became aware on 27 November 1998, signed by
notified to the applicant, the Commission declared that that                 the President of the European Parliament, expressly
medical examination for recruitment purposes was null and                    rejecting the applicant’s complaint, which was registered
void, criticising the applicant for failing to disclose all the              on 5 July 1988, against the implied decision rejecting her
necessary medical information, and required her to take a fresh              request;
medical examination in order to verify her physical fitness. By
letter of 9 January 1998 that decision was notified to the               — Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety in
applicant in English.                                                        any event.
By decision of 7 December 1998 the appointing authority                  Pleas in law and main arguments
annulled the decisions appointing the applicant as a probation-
ary official and then as an official.
                                                                         The applicant is involved in a dispute with a crèche. According
                                                                         to her, documents produced in connection with the dispute
                                                                         were improperly forwarded, without her consent, to certain
Given that the applicant writes and understands only English             Belgian judicial authorities and to the Commission. The
and Swedish, she submits that all the earlier documents in               applicant seeks the assistance of the Parliament administration
French and all the meetings held in French must be regarded              on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following
as null and void.                                                        the disclosure of those documents. By the contested decision,
                                                                         the defendant rejected the complaint against the implied
                                                                         decision rejecting her request as inadmissible.
She also alleges breach of medical confidentiality: the applicant
had informed her own doctor of her insignificant medical
history relating to 1986 and her doctor sent a medical report            The applicant alleges breach of the Staff Regulations, in
to the defendant.                                                        particular Articles 17, 19 and 26, and of general principles of
                                                                         law, in particular that of the protection of legitimate expec-
                                                                         tations and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials,
                                                                         and also misuse of powers.
The applicant criticises the composition of the medical com-
mittees, which was such that there was no guarantee or indeed
appearance of objectivity.                                               The applicant claims that the defendant cannot, without giving
                                                                         notice thereof to the official concerned and obtaining his prior
                                                                         consent, use, for the examination of any matter, be it
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the rights of the defence:      administrative or judicial, a document written or issued in
she was not able properly to defend herself because she did              relation to his personal situation or any request submitted
not have access to her entire medical file.                              by him in accordance with the Staff Regulations to the
                                                                         administration, in connection with the examination of a
                                                                         matter, be it administrative or judicial.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 31 March 1995 in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 137/22           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
Regulation ( EC ) No 2557/94 of 19 October 1994 imposing               Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of calcium metal             Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
originating in the People's Republic of China and Russia ( OJ          address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
1994 L 270, p. 27 ) — the President of the Court of First              Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
Instance made an order on 24 February 1995 , the operative             the European Communities ( Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of the implementation of the
                                                                       decision of 18 January 1995 whereby the appointing
1 . the application for suspension of the operation of the             authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure
     Regulation is dismissed;                                          of removal from post without withdrawal of entitlement to
                                                                       retirement pension provided for by Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the
2 . there is no need to rule on the applications to                    Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
     intervene;                                                        — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       on 31 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as
3.   the costs are reserved.                                           follows :
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                       2.   the costs are reserved.
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 15 March 1995
in Case T-6/95 R: Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop, arl v.
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( 95/C 137/54 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                  OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 April 1995
In Case T-6/95 R : Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop , arl, having         in    Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
its registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone                 Commission of the European Communities
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue                                            ( 95/C 137/56 )
Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 1(1 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of
21 December 1994 introducing a further derogation from                 In Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
the detailed rules for the delivery by producers of the table          spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
wine they are required to deliver for compulsory distillation          residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
in respect of the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ 1994 L 332, p. 32 )           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel, with an address for
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer,
on 15 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as                   1 Rue Roger Barthel, Bereldange, v. Commission of the
follows :
                                                                       European Communities (Agents : J. Griesmar, J. Burrall and
                                                                       B. Wagenbaur ) — application for interim measures
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 concerning, primarily, an order for suspension of the
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       implementation of an alleged decision of the Luxembourg
                                                                       Claims Office whereby the applicant was to cease to be
                                                                       covered by the sickness insurance scheme common to the
                                                                       institutions of the European Communities with effect from
                                                                       31 March 1995 , and, as a subsidiary plea, an order that such
                                                                       cover should not cease on the expiry of the period prescribed
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  by Article 72 ( lb ) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               European Communities, namely one year after the date of
                                                                       the decree absolute of divorce of the applicant — the
                      of 31 March 1995                                 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the               10 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                    European Communities
                         ( 95 /C 137/55 )                              1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2.   the costs are reserved.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case C-151/06: Action brought on  20 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         Action brought on 20 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-151/06)
   (2006/C 108/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/125/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the fair presentation of investment recommendations and the disclosure of conflicts of interest (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementing Directive 2003/125/EC expired on 12 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 339, p.73


               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-158/05 (1)

   (2006/C 22/20)

      Language of the case: German

   By order of 7 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-158/05: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C of 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-216/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Milano, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of 15 May 1998 in the case of Riccardo Prisco Srl v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato

text:
7.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                          Presidential Decree No 641/1972, regard being had to the
Feldkirch als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht by order of that                        fact that the said Article 11 retroactively extended to taxes
court of 16 March 1999 in the case of Friedrich Jauch                            paid but not due the three-year time-limit which, however,
      against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                          in the abovementioned second paragraph of Article 13 —
                                                                                on the basis of the true meaning of the words used in
                          (Case C-215/99)                                        context — was expressly limited solely to the case of
                                                                                ‘repayment of charges paid by mistake’ so as to induce not
                                                                                only the interested parties but also all the trial judges to
                          (1999/C 226/37)                                        interpret it in that manner?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           In short, does the principle of legal certainty allow the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                               national court to apply — both then and now — a
(Regional Court) Feldkirch, in its capacity as a court with                      time-limit based on a provision which, having regard to
jurisdiction in employment and social security matters, of                       the ordinary meaning of the words, does not apply to the
16 March 1999, received at the Court Registry on 7 June                          case before it?
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Jauch v
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Employees’ Retire-               2. Must the provisions of Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council
ment Insurance Institution) on the following question:                           Directive 69/335/EEC (2) be interpreted as preventing the
                                                                                introduction of national legislation, like that introduced by
‘Is it an infringement of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation                    the Italian legislature in the form of Article 11(1) and (2)
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of                       of Law No 448/1998, which — ex post facto — reduces
social security schemes to employed persons, to self employed                    refunds in respect of amounts paid but not due by way of
persons and to members of their families moving within the                       annual charge on a flat-rate basis for entry on the register
Community, in its current version, to make entitlement                           of undertakings (at that time document registries) of
to nursing benefit pursuant to the current version of the                        company documents in respect of each of which the
Bundespflegegeldgesetz (Federal Law on nursing benefit; BGBl                     company had already paid a sum provided for by the
110/1993) dependent on the person in need of care having                         national legislation?
his normal residence in Austria?’
                                                                                In short, is it permitted—in the light of the abovemen-
                                                                                tioned directive—for the national legislature to duplicate,
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                               ex post facto by means of what purports to be an
                                                                                interpretative law, levies which have already been paid?
                                                                            (1) (1988) ECR 3249.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969, p. 25.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Milano, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of
15 May 1998 in the case of Riccardo Prisco Srl v
          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                          (Case C-216/99)                                   Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (1999/C 226/38)
                                                                                (Case C-217/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the First Civil Chamber
of the Tribunale di Milano by order of 15 May 1999, which                                             (1999/C 226/39)
was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1999, on the
following questions:                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
1. Do the principles of legal certainty and the protection of               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     individuals — which, according to the judgment of the                  represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
     Court of Justice of 21 June 1988 in Case 257/88 (1) and                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
     in other judgments, require that, in areas covered by                  of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
     Community law, the Member States’ legal rules should be                Centre, Kirchberg.
     worded unequivocally so as to give the persons concerned
     a clear and precise understanding of their rights and
     obligations and enable the national courts to ensure that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     those rights and obligations are observed — and the
     Community principle of proportionality preclude a Mem-                 — declare that, by laying clown in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal
     ber State from relying on national rules setting a peremp-                  Decree of 3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the
     tory time-limit, such as those deriving from the combined                   market of nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have
     provisions of the second paragraph of Article 13 of                         been added an obligation to indicate on the labelling of the


title: Case T-353/09: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 — mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark mtronix — Earlier Community word mark Montronix — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 — mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix)
   (Case T-353/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark mtronix - Earlier Community word mark Montronix - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 73/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: mtronix OHG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Schnetzer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Growth Finance AG (Zug, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1557/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Growth Finance AG and mtronix OHG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders mtronix OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-90/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by 1. garantovaná a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09: 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/28

         Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by 1. garantovaná a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09: 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission
   (Case C-90/13 P)
   2013/C 114/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the General Court’s decision of 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09 as it relates to the second pleas in the Appellant’s Application before the General Court;

               —

               uphold that plea as well-founded;

               —

               reduce the level of the fine to EUR 2.1 million, representing 10 % of the Appellant’s turnover in 2008 as recoded at paragraph 84 of the Contested Judgment; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s second plea in law.
   Article 23(2) of regulation No. 1/2003 (1) provides: ‘…the fine shall not exceed 10 % of its [the undertaking in question] turnover in the preceding business year’. The ‘preceding business year’ is the last full business year immediately preceding the date of adoption of the Commission decision finding that there has been an infringement of the competition rules and imposing a fine.
   In the present case the ‘turnover in the preceding business year’ was that for 2008, not the turnover taken into account by the Commission. The effect of using the turnover for 2007 was to inflate the fine imposed on Garantovaná to just under 100 % of its turnover in the business year preceding the date of adoption of the Commission decision (22 July 2009).
   The appellant submits that the Commission’s use of the 2007 turnover was contrary to the clear wording and purpose of article 23(2) and unlawful. As claimed in Garantovaná’s second plea in law in the proceedings before the General Court, the fine should therefore be reduced either in compliance with Article 23(2) or in the exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction under article 261 TFUE and article 31 of regulation no 1/2003.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case F-152/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission
   (Case F-152/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 410/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jonas Poniskaitis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and, lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Martin and G. Gattinara, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, subsequently G. Gattinara, Agent, and, lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to calculate on the basis of the new GIP the amounts to be credited of the applicant’s pension rights acquired before he entered the service of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Jonas Poniskaitis shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9/3/2013, p. 30.


title: Case C-623/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 — Substantive scope — Levies on income from assets — General social contribution — Social debt repayment contribution — Social levy — Additional contribution to the social levy — Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter
   (Case C-623/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4 - Substantive scope - Levies on income from assets - General social contribution - Social debt repayment contribution - Social levy - Additional contribution to the social levy - Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes - Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security))
   (2015/C 138/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Defendant: Gérard de Ruyter

      Operative part of the judgment

   Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, have, when they contribute to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of that regulation and thus fall within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies are imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-172/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2012 by EI du Pont de Nemours and Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and others v European Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/10

         Appeal brought on 5 April 2012 by EI du Pont de Nemours and Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and others v European Commission
   (Case C-172/12 P)
   2012/C 194/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce, A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-76/08 insofar as it upheld the Commission's finding that the Appellant was a party to the infringement and liable to pay a fine;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the General Court erred in law in finding that the appellant was liable for infringements by DuPont Dow Elastomers (‘DDE’). Insofar as the appellant is successful on this ground of appeal, it follows that:

               —

               as regards the period prior to the establishment of DDE (when the chloroprene rubber business had been owned by the appellant) the General Court erred in law in not ruling that the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine on the appellant in respect of participation by its subsidiaries, and

               —

               in circumstances where the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine and failed to demonstrate a legitimate interest for issuing a decision against the appellant, the General Court erred in law in ruling that the appellant was liable for participation by its subsidiaries in the period prior to the establishment of DDE.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2004 in Case T-21/03: S v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Occupational illness — Recognition of illness as occupational in origin — Request for removal of certain documents from the file held by the medical committee — Refusal — Act adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/16

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2004
   in Case T-21/03: S v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Occupational illness - Recognition of illness as occupational in origin - Request for removal of certain documents from the file held by the medical committee - Refusal - Act adversely affecting an official - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 251/28)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-21/03: S, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 March 2002 refusing to remove certain documents from the file held by the medical committee called upon to consider the applicant's request to have the illness from which she is suffering recognised as occupational in origin — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, J. D. Cooke and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               (2)

               Each of the parties is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case C-575/10: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/8

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-575/10) (1)

   2012/C 109/17
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-511/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV v Council of the European Union, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) — Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 — Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines — Injury to the Community industry — Major proportion of the total Community production of the like products)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV v Council of the European Union, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH, European Commission
   (Case C-511/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) - Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Injury to the Community industry - Major proportion of the total Community production of the like products))
   (2015/C 363/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV (represented by: L. Catrain González, abogada, and E. Wright, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by S. Gubel, avocat, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor), Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH (represented by: R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Philips Lighting Poland SA and Philips Lighting BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and of Osram GmbH;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-249/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 — Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Articles 2(7), 9(5) and 17(3) — Market economy treatment — Individual treatment — Sampling)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC)
   (Case C-249/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 2(7), 9(5) and 17(3) - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling)
   2012/C 80/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, S. De Knop and C. Dackö, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and R. Szostak, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and H. van Vliet, Agents), Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 in Case T 401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd and Others v Council by which that court dismissed an action seeking the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam in so far as it relates to Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs, both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.