title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2002 in Case C-219/00 P: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 191/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.    The following are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and/or          P.C. Gaito, lawyers — appeal against the judgment of the
      manifestly unfounded:                                                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Fourth
                                                                             Chamber, Extended Composition, of 15 March 2000 in Joined
      —     second ground of appeal, second to fifth parts;                  Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to
                                                                             T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95,
      —     third ground of appeal;                                          T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/95 to
                                                                             T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR v Commission [2000] ECR II-491,
      —     sixth ground of appeal;                                          seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
      —     eighth ground of appeal;                                         (Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court,
                                                                             composed of P. Jann, Presidents of the Chamber,
      —     ninth ground of appeal, first part;                              D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
                                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 June 2002, the
      —     eleventh ground of appeal, first, second, fourth and fifth
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
            parts;
      —     sixteenth ground of appeal;                                      1.    The fourth and fifth parts of the sixth ground of appeal are
                                                                                dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
      —     seventeenth ground of appeal;
                                                                             2.    Costs are reserved.
      —     nineteenth ground of appeal;
      —     twentieth ground of appeal, and                                  (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      —     twentieth and twenty-first grounds of appeal.
2.    Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                 of 30 May 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   in Case C-358/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Buchhändler-
                            of 5 June 2002                                   Vereinigung GmbH v Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Die
                                                                                Deutsche Bibliothek (1)
in Case C-219/00 P: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno
    SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)                         (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Public service
                                                                             contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service con-
(Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the                                                      cession)
EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                       manifestly unfounded)                                                            (2002/C 191/21)
                           (2002/C 191/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-358/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-219/00 P: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno                        by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a prelimi-
SpA, established in Rome, represented by G.M. Roberti and                    nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2001 in Case C-220/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List of sites — Site information)

text:
C 289/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         13.10.2001
of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski) —                  Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — appli-
application for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the           cation for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the
Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first                    Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first
subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC                 subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                  of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together                     of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together
with the information on each site required by the second                    with the information on each site required by the second
subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the Federal Republic of               subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the French Republic has
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive           failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                        (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schint-              President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
gen, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger,                  and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
on 11 September 2001, in which it:                                          a judgment on 11 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within       1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within
      the prescribed period, the list of sites mentioned in the first             the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first
      subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC                 subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
      of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                  of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
      of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those             of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those
      sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)                   sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)
      thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its           thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      obligations under that directive;                                           under that directive;
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the costs.             2.    Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 July 2001
                        of 11 September 2001
                                                                            in Case C-262/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-220/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou): Paraskevas
                      ties v French Republic (1)                                           Louloudakis v Elliniko Dimosio (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Directive 83/182/EEC — Means of transport temporarily
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —                    imported — Tax exemptions — Normal residence in a
Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List                  Member State — Fine for improperly importing exempt from
                    of sites — Site information)                                   tax — Principle of proportionality — Good faith)
                           (2001/C 289/03)                                                              (2001/C 289/04)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-220/999: Commission of the European Communi-                      In Case C-262/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
ties (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French               EC from the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Greece),


title: Case F-9/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Rosenbaum v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Grading — Request for reclassification — Scope of Article 13 in Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Taking into account professional experience — Recruitment in the grade of the competition — Article 31 of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Free movement of workers)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/83

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Rosenbaum v Commission
   (Case F-9/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Grading - Request for reclassification - Scope of Article 13 in Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Taking into account professional experience - Recruitment in the grade of the competition - Article 31 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Free movement of workers)
   2009/C 267/150
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Staff case — First, annulment of the decision classifying the applicant, a successful candidate in a competition held for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in Grade A7/A6, in Grade AD 6/2 and, second, an application for reclassification.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Rosenbaum to bear his costs and to pay those of the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 70.


title: Case T-39/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v EUIPO — Fink (NANA FINK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NANA FINK — Earlier EU word mark NANA — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Duty to rule on the entirety of the action)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v EUIPO — Fink (NANA FINK)
   (Case T-39/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NANA FINK - Earlier EU word mark NANA - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Duty to rule on the entirety of the action))
   (2017/C 161/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nadine Fink (Basel, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2015 (Case R 679/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Ms Fink.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2015 (Case R 679/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Ms Nadine Fink, in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the action before it with regard to ‘precious metals and their alloys’ in Class 14 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and covered by the figurative mark which was the subject of International Registration No 1111651 designating the European Union;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-319/04: Action brought on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/33

         Action brought on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-319/04)
   (2004/C 228/68)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the European Union (FST) - Annex: European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers (1), or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 30 June 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.


title: Removal from the register of C-296/96

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-332/01: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1996 to 1999 — Decision 2001/557/EC — Cotton, olive oil, dried grapes, sheepmeat and goatmeat)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-332/01: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1996 to 1999 - Decision 2001/557/EC - Cotton, olive oil, dried grapes, sheepmeat and goatmeat)
   (2004/C 262/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-304/01: Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) — application for annulment under Article 230 EC brought on 3 September 2001 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case C-52/00: Action brought on 17 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 163/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.6.2000
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                           1. declare that
                         of 30 March 2000
                                                                               — by including, in Article 3 of Law No 98-389 of
in Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki v Commission of                           19.5.1998 (1), damage of less than ECU 500;
                 the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Notice of competition — Refusal of                       — by considering, in Article 8 of that law, that the
admission to competition — Manifestly inadmissible and                              distributor of a defective product is liable in all cases
                         unfounded appeal)                                          and on the same basis as the manufacturer;
                          (2000/C 163/09)
                                                                               — by providing, in the second paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                                that law, that the producer must prove that he took
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                  appropriate measures to prevent the consequences of
                                                                                a defective product in order to rely on the defences
                                                                                provided for by Article 7(d) and (e) of the Directive;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Articles 9, 3(3) and 7 of Directive 85/374/EEC (2).
In Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki, nurse, residing at
Pyhäjärvi (Finland), represented by H. Ojala, of the Oulu Bar
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance               2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 16 Sep-
tember 1998 in Case T-215/97 Jouhki v Commission [1998]
ECR-SC I-A-503 and II-1513, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Paasi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
virta and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court (Second Cham-
ber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas,                      — Breach of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC: the Directive
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    gives the Member States no discretion to depart from the
30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                      wording of Article 9 in respect of the threshold. Article 13
                                                                               does not constitute a minimum clause which would allow
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                    a national legislature to provide for strict liability in respect
                                                                               of defective products, which is more stringent than the
2. Ms Jouhki is to pay the costs.                                              provisions of the Directive. That does not prevent France
                                                                               from applying its own laws on the guarantee in respect of
                                                                               hidden defects or on criminal liability for damage not
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                               covered by the Directive, as in the case of damage of less
                                                                               than ECU 500.
                                                                           — Breach of Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374/EEC: under
                                                                               Article 8 of Law No 98-389 the supplier is deemed
                                                                               equivalent to the producer whereas under Article 3(3) of
Action brought on 17 February 2000 by the Commission                           the Directive a supplier is only liable in the alternative,
of the European Communities against the French Republic                        where a producer is unknown. Contrary to the statements
                                                                               of the French Government, bringing an action against a
                           (Case C-52/00)                                      supplier who relies on a producer’s guarantee is not
                                                                               equivalent to a victim’s bringing an action directly against
                                                                               a producer. Article 3(3) of the Directive is intended to
                          (2000/C 163/10)                                      prevent inappropriate or improper actions against a sup-
                                                                               plier who can only be called into question if the consumer
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   has given him an opportunity to inform him of the identity
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February                    of the supplier before any action is brought. Moreover, an
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            action brought directly against a producer generally allows
represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin of its Legal                   a remedy to be obtained, if necessary, within the jurisdic-
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                      tion where the applicant resides if the victim can be
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                   considered to be a consumer within the meaning of
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                             Articles 13 and 14 of the Brussels Convention.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/7
— Breach of Article 7 of Directive 85/374/EEC:                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
     — By making the defence of compliance with mandatory
          regulations (Article 7(d) of the Directive) subject to an      1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
          obligation to monitor, the French law transposing the              European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and
          Directive makes that defence subject to a condition not            T-143/96 Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswa-
          laid down by the Directive.                                        gen Sachsen GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (1);
     — Similarly, in providing that a producer may not rely on
          the defence of the state of technical knowledge if, in         2. Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision 96/666/EC of
          the event of a defect which became apparent within a               26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
          certain time of the product’s being put on the market,             Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz (OJ
          he did not take steps to prevent harmful consequences,             1996 L 308, p. 46);
          the second paragraph of Article 1386-12 of the French
          Civil Code inserts an additional condition in Article
          7(e) of the Directive for which that Directive makes no
          provision.                                                     3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) JORF of 21.5.1998.
(2) Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning        Pleas in law and main arguments
    liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, of 7. 8.1985,
    p. 29).
                                                                         — Defective interpretation of Article 87(2)(c) EC: Contrary to
                                                                             the view expressed in the contested judgment, the term
                                                                             ‘division of Germany’ refers not only to the physical and
                                                                             transport/technical establishment of the frontier, but also
                                                                             to the whole of the economic consequences of the socialist
                                                                             system. The appellants argue that that is readily apparent
                                                                             from the fact that, in 1992 and 1997, when the immediate
                                                                             physical and transport/technical consequences of the bor-
                                                                             der between the two German States (interruption of
                                                                             transport links etc.) were already overcome, the signatory
                                                                             States of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties left Article
                                                                             92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty (old version) unchanged. In the
Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat Sachsen                      applicants’ submission, that decision of the Treaty makers
against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by                        means that Article 87(2)(c) EC is intended to support State
the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the                             promotion of the difficult reconstruction of economically
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                       viable structures in East Germany by means of financial
Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat                         incentives. Any other interpretation would imply that the
Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen                                Treaty makers deliberately maintained in force a provision
GmbH, of the one part, and the Commission of the                             that had become devoid of purpose.
            European Communities of the other part
                           (Case C-57/00 P)                                  In the practice of the Commission, Article 87(2)(c) EC
                                                                             has already been interpreted as a provision designed to
                                                                             overcome the economic consequences of the division of
                           (2000/C 163/11)                                   Germany into different economic zones as part of the
                                                                             postwar settlement, as is apparent from the Commission’s
                                                                             decision of 11 December 1964 concerning aids designed
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December                      to facilitate the integration of the Saarland into the
1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the                     economy of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bulletin of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                the European Economic Community No 2-1965, p. 33).
Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen,
Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one
part, and the Commission of the European Communities, of                     The Court of First Instance paid no attention at all to the
the other part, was brought before the Court of Justice of the               fact that, in the system of the EC Treaty, the overcoming
European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat                        of the disadvantages caused by the division of Germany in
Sachsen, represented by Freshfields Deringer, Rechtsanwälte,                 the transport field is the subject-matter of a special
Charlottenstrasse 65, D-10117 Berlin, with an address for                    provision in Title V of the Treaty (Transport), namely the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 398                     division clause of Article 78, which was also left unaltered
Route d’Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg.                                             by the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.


title: Case T-544/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Hansen & Rosenthal and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb v Commission (Competition — Agreements — Paraffin waxes market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing — Proof of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — No retroactivity — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Hansen & Rosenthal and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb v Commission

   (Case T-544/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements - Paraffin waxes market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing - Proof of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - No retroactivity - Equal treatment - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 046/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG (Hamburg, Germany); and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (Hamburg) (represented by: J. Schulte, A. Lober and M. Dallmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes), in that it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on them.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H & R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/21
The reduced rate for medicaments reimbursable by the                       Removal from the register of Case C-84/97 (1)
social security was applicable on 1 January 1991 but does                                  (1999/C 48/36)
not comply with Community law.
                                                                    By order of 27 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
Such a rate specifically for reimbursable medicaments,              European Communities has ordered the removal from the
whereas another rate is applicable to other medicaments,            register of Case C-84/97 (reference for a preliminary
is contrary to the principle of uniformity of the tax in            ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino):
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive.                            Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Grafoplast
                                                                    SpA.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
That specific rate is not, as the French Government
contends, based on objective criteria but on the legal
status of the products in question. Medicaments
reimbursable by the social security are not intrinsically
different from other medicaments.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-305/96 (1)
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/37)
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                    register of Case C-305/96: United Kingdom and Northern
                                                                    Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities.
      Removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (1)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                        (1999/C 48/34)
By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (Reference for                 Removal from the register of Case C-332/97 (1)
a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Sarclad
                                                                                (1999/C 48/38)
International Ltd v. Bundesamt für Finanzen.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.                                             By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-332/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-178/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/35)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-367/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/39)
By order of 23 October 1998, the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
Case C-178/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-367/97: Commission
Stefano Serbini v. Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero.
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the
                                                                    Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: Appeal brought on 30 September 1996 by the European Broadcasting Union against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93 between Métropole Télévision SA, Reti Televise Italiane Spa, Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA (SIC), Gestevisión Telecinco and Antena 3 de Televisión, on the one hand, and Commission of the European Communities, European Broadcasting Union, Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA (RAI) and Radiotelevisión española (RTVE) (Case C-320/96 P)

text:
No C 354/ 18           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
3 . ( b ) Does it matter, as regards the answer to Question 2 ,         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          that the definitions in the Tobacco Directive were
          not implemented in the Member State if the
          national authority, in its decision, referred to the          — Misinterpretation of Articles 90 (2 ) and 85 ( 3 ): the fact
          definitions, and the parties to the case before the              that the former provision is applicable does not preclude
          national court are in agreement that the definitions             the applicability of the latter . There is no basis for the
          in the Directive are directly applicable ?                       proposition that the collective activities of public service
                                                                           broadcasting organizations should be considered under
                                                                           Article 90 ( 2 ) rather than under Article 85 ( 3 ) nor for the
                                                                           proposition that, when granting exemption, the
4 . Does it matter, as regards the answer to Question 2 , that
                                                                           Commission could not take into account public interest
     the authorities refused to suspend the operation of the               considerations in the absence of other circumstances .
     authority's decision as requested by the plaintiff with a
                                                                           The judgment confused two separate concepts, that of
     view to limiting its losses ?
                                                                           ' services of general economic interest' within the
                                                                           meaning of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Treaty and that of the
                                                                           'particular public mission' conferred on a broadcasting
(!) OJ No L 10 , 16 . 1 . 1979 , p . 8 .
                                                                           service under the specific rules of its national
                                                                           legislation.
                                                                        — Misapplication of Article 85 and manifest error of
                                                                           assessment in so far as it is held in the judgment that the
                                                                           acquisition of exclusive rights to retransmit
                                                                           international sports events on television might not be
                                                                           necessary and should be the subject of an in-depth
                                                                           investigation on the part of the Commission, whereas it
Appeal brought on 30 September 1996 by the European                        is sufficiently evident from the case-file that exclusive
Broadcasting Union against the judgment delivered on                       rights are the norm .
11 July 1996 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition,
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and                      — Misapplication of Article 85 and manifest error of
T-5 46/93 between Metropole Television SA, Reti Televise                   assessment in so far as the judgment requires the
                                                                           Commission to examine whether the burdens and
Italiane Spa, Sociedade Independente de Comunicagao SA
( SIC ), Gestevision Telecinco and Antena 3 de Television, on              obligations arising for the members of the EBU as a
the one hand, and Commission of the European                               result of their mission of public interest are not
Communities,          European           Broadcasting      Union,          compensated for financially, possibly by State aid within
Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA ( RAI ) and Radiotelevision                  the meaning of Articles 92 and 93 . No such requirement
                         espanola ( RTVE )                                 follows from the wording of Article 85 ( 3 ). There is no
                                                                           connection between the manner in which a Member
                       ( Case C-320/96 P )                                 State proposes to organize the funding of a broadcaster
                           ( 96/C 354/35 )                                 and the legality of any cooperation between that
                                                                           broadcaster and other broadcasters with a view to
                                                                           presenting a joint offering in terms of the retransmission
                                                                           of sports events .
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                        — Manifest error of assessment and reasoning: the
Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and T-546/93
                                                                           judgment is defective in so far as it fails to take account
between Metropole Television SA, Reti Televise Italiane
                                                                           of an essential aspect. The Court of First Instance went
SpA, Sociedade Independente de Comunicagao SA ( SIC ),                     off on the wrong track: the exemption decision relates to
Gestevision Telecinco and Antena 3 de Television, on the
                                                                           the joint offering in the name of the members of the EBU
one hand, and Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           and not to the manner in which an organization becomes
European Broadcasting Union, Radiotelevisione Italiana
                                                                           a member of the EBU. The exemption decision was
SpA ( RAI ) and Radiotelevision espanola ( RTVE ), was                     preceded by years of negotiations between the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Commission and the EBU on the conditions on which
Communities on 30 Septemnber 1996 by the European
                                                                           the EBU was to grant sublicences to any broadcaster in
Broadcasting Union ( EBU ), represented by Ian S. Forrester
                                                                           Europe, including the respondents . The judgment has
QC, of the Scottish Bar, and Alasdair R. M. Bell, solicitor                regard only to the criteria for EBU membership and does
( Scotland ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           not take account of the impact in favour of competition
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
                                                                           of the system of sublicences .
The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First            — Manifest error of assessment and misapplication of
Instance of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases T-528/93 ,                        Article 85 in that the Court of First Instance wrongly
T-542/93 , T-543/93 and T-546/93 ( ] ) should be set aside .               concludes that national legislative provisions relating to
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 354/ 19
     broadcasting determine whether a broadcaster qualifies            2 . Are the proceedings of an administrative authority
     to become an active member of the EBU, and in that it                    within the meaning of paragraph 7 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the
     analyses the relevance of the criteria for membership of                 Umweltinformationsgesetz [Law on information on the
     the EBU in the light of the Commission decision .                        environment] preliminary investigation proceedings
                                                                              within the meaning of the third indent of Article 3 ( 2 ) of
— The Court of First Instance was guilty of manifest error                    that Directive ?
     of assessment when it considered that the Commission
     granted an exemption to the rules for EBU membership .            0 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 56 .
     The Commission has in no way granted exemption to
     those rules .
— Manifest error of assessment in so far as it is considered
     in the judgment that the criteria for EBU membership are
     vague, imprecise and liable to be applied in a                    Action brought on 2 October 1996 by the Commission of
     discriminatory manner, whereas, on an objective view,             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     they are appropriate, foreseeable and reasonably                                                   Belgium
     precise .                                                                                Case C-323 /96 )
— Defective reasoning and misinterpretation of Article 85                                           ( 96/C 354/37 )
     in so far as the judgment seems to lay down criteria for
     the grant of exemption to a group of broadcasters                 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     entrusted with a mission of public interest which are so          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     onerous as to make it practically impossible to obtain            2 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
     any exemption whatsoever . The judgment also seriously            Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
     encroaches upon the discretion available to the                   Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     Commission and consequently upon its ability to fulfil            Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its
     its obligations in administering the competition rules.           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(!) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 12 .                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                              its obligations under Directives 89/440/EEC ( ! ) and
                                                                              93/37/EEC ( 2 ), and in particular Articles 7 and 11 of
                                                                              Directive 93/37/EEC in so far as it did not place a notice
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities
Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order                      either for the overall project or for the individual lots for
of that court of 10 July 1996 in the case of Wilhelm                          the construction of a building for the Vlaamse Raad and
Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg ( der Landrat); also                           it did not apply the award procedures in accordance with
participating: der Vertreter des offentlichen Interesses,                     those directives;
                                 Kiel
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                         ( Case C-321 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 354/36 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 According to the Commission, the defendant does not
European Communities by an order of the                                dispute that it infringed Directive 93/37/EEC in connection
Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht [Higher                with the award procedures for the building of the Vlaamse
Administrative Court, Schleswig-Holstein] ( Fourth                     Raad. In contrast, it is clear from various reactions of the
Chamber ) of 10 July 1996 , which was received at the Court            Belgian public authorities that they considered that the
Registry on 1 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the           infringement of the provisions of Directive 93/37/EEC was
case of Wilhelm Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg ( der                   attributable to the inadequate implementation of that
Landrat); also participating: der Vertreter des offentlichen           Directive in Belgian law, namely that the legislative bodies
Interesses [Representative of the Public Interest], Kiel, on           considered that the necessary legal framework was lacking.
the following questions :                                              The defendant's reliance on it itself having incorrectly
                                                                        implemented the Directive in question is however irrelevant,
 1 . Are the observations made by a lower                               since a Member State is not entitled to plead provisions,
      Landschaftspflegebehdrde [ Countryside Protection                 practices or situations of a domestic nature in order to
      Authority] in its capacity as representative of the public        justify its non-compliance with its obligations under
      interest in connection with development consent                   Community law.
      proceedings an administrative measure designed to
      protect the environment within the meaning of                     (>) OJ No L 210 , 21 . 7 . 1989 , p . 1 .
      Article 2 ( a ) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (') of            ( 2 ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 54 .
      7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
      the environment ?


title: Case T-407/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by Antonio Aresu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 35/18                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.2.2004
Action brought on 17 December 2003 by Antonio Aresu                         Action brought on 9 December 2003 by Georges Herbil-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        lon against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-407/03)                                                             (Case T-411/03)
                          (2004/C 35/29)                                                              (2004/C 35/30)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
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
European Communities by Antonio Aresu, represented by                       European Communities on 9 December 2003 by Georges
Sergio Diana, avvocato.                                                     Herbillon, residing in Arlon (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
                                                                            Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
A)    annul the following two decisions:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                23 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
      —     the express decision of the appointing authority                      classification in Grade A 7;
            contained in Chantal Graykowski’s email of
            31 March 2003 stating that the the applicant’s
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            application in connection with the programme
            ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation (Phase 3)’ had been
            rejected;
      —     the implied decision of the appointing authority                Pleas in law and main arguments
            of 18 December 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
            complaint lodged on 18 June 2003 concerning that
            decision;
                                                                            The applicant was classified in grade A 7, step 3, upon taking
                                                                            up his duties with the Commission in September 1986. The
B)    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                applicant challenges the appointing authority’s decision, after
                                                                            reexamination of that classification following the judgment
                                                                            delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v
                                                                            Commission, not to reclassify him.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
In this action the applicant challenges the rejection of his                —     breach of the duty to provided reasons, in so far as the
application for a transfer to an external delegation in connec-                   response of the defendant to his complaint merely
tion with the programme ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation                           consisted of a theoretical and altogether general account;
(Phase 3)’.
                                                                            —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                                assessment consisting in both a misinterpretation of the
In support of his claims, the applicant’s sole argument relates                   precedent set in Alexopoulou and in a stereotypical and
is that there was a complete failure to provide a statement of                    superficial analysis of his own circumstances, so far as
reasons, and a consequent infringement of the second para-                        concerned the criteria relating to exceptional qualifi-
graph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.                                     cations and the special needs of the service.


title: Case C-311/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2006 — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Cavallera

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2006 — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Cavallera
   (Case C-311/06)
   (2006/C 249/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

      Respondents: Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Cavallera
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 89/48/EEC (1) apply to an Italian national who: (a) obtained a three-year degree in engineering in Italy; (b) obtained recognition of the Italian qualification as being equivalent to the corresponding Spanish qualification; (c) obtained registration in the Spanish register of engineers but never pursued that profession in Spain; (d) applied, on the basis of the Spanish recognition of equivalence, for registration in the register of engineers in Italy?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is a domestic provision (Article 1 of Legislative Decree No 115 of 1992) that does not permit recognition in Italy of a qualification of a Member State which in turn is exclusively the result of recognition of a previous Italian qualification compatible with Directive 89/48/EEC?

      (1)  OJ L 19, p. 16.


7.3.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 72/15
      Removal from the register of Case C-286/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (1)
                         (98/C 72/31)                                                     (98/C 72/34)
By order of 17 November 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 26 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the           of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-286/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (reference for a
of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.              preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Terni): Criminal proceedings against Ivana Rosi.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/32)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-49/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/35)
By order of 20 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-141/97: Commission           By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-49/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                         the European Communities v. French Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-88/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/33)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/36)
By order of 24 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/97: Commission of         By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-227/97: Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                          of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 27 February 2002 in Case T-34/00: Eurocool Logistik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — EUROCOOL — Observance of the rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 144/40                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those        3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
      incurred by the applicants.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           26 February 2002
                                                                                27 February 2002
in Case T-17/00: Willi Rothley e.a. v European Parlia-
                                 ment (1)
                                                                          in Case T-34/00: Eurocool Logistik GmbH v Office for
(Measure of the Parliament — Action for annulment —                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Admissibility — Immunity of Members of the Parliament                                            Designs) (OHIM) (1)
— European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Powers of
                              investigation)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — EUROCOOL — Observance of
                                                                          the rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal —
                            (2002/C 144/84)                               Distinctive character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/85)
In Case T-17/00, Willi Rothley, residing at Rockenhausen                                     (Language of the case: German)
(Germany), and the 70 other applicants whose names appear
in the Annex hereto, represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch,
lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and
H. Krück), supported by Council of the European Union
(Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı́ez Parra), Commission             In Case T-34/00, Eurocool Logistik GmbH, established in Linz
of the European Communities (Agents: J.-L. Dewost,                        (Austria), represented by G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address
H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker), Kingdom of the Netherlands                  for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: H. G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) and French Republic            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
(Agents: G. de Bergues, S. Pailler, C. Vasak and L. Bernheim):            O. Montalto, E. Joly and G. Schneider): Action brought against
Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of                 the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
18 November 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Procedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of                   Designs) of 9 December 1999 (Case R 233/1999-1), concern-
25 May 1999 between the Parliament, the Council and the                   ing registration of the term EUROCOOL as a Community trade
Commission on the internal investigations conducted by the                mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Court of First Instance                P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-            Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-              given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February
2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the
                                                                                First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December
                                                                                1999 (Case R 233/1999-1);
2.    Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those incurred
      by the defendant in the main proceedings and in the application
      for interim relief;                                                 2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/41
3.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                                         27 February 2002
                                                                          in Case T-106/00: Streamserve Inc. v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                          ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Term STREAMSERVE — Absol-
                                                                          ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Prior national registrations —
                                                                                Principle of non-discrimination)
                        27 February 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 144/87)
in Case T-79/00: Rewe Zentral AG v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                            (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Community trade mark — ‘LITE’ — Observance of the
rights of defence — Immaterial plea — Absolute ground for
   refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                          In Case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc., established in Raleigh,
                         (2002/C 144/86)                                  North Carolina (United States of America), represented by
                                                                          M. Nedstrand, lawyer, v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Humphreys): Action
                  (Language of the case: German)                          brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                                                                          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                          Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-
                                                                          2) concerning registration of the term STREAMSERVE as a
                                                                          Community trade mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-79/00, Rewe Zentral AG, established in Cologne                  Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
(Germany), represented by M. Kinkeldey, lawyer, v Office for              R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 March 2002, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: initially V. Melgar and P. von Kapff,            which it:
and, subsequently, Melgar and G. Schneider): Action brought
against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 27 January 2000 (Case R 275/1999-3) concerning                1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
the registration of ‘LITE’ as a Community trade mark, the                       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                          Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) as
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,                         regards goods in the categories ‘manuals’ and ‘publications’;
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                          2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          3.    Orders the applicant to bear it own costs and to pay two thirds
                                                                                of the defendant’s costs and orders the defendant to bear one
2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                  third of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case C-54/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2014  — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
   (Case C-54/14)
   2014/C 135/23
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rafael Villafáñez Gallego and María Pérez Anguio

      Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, (1) must an agreement between a bank and an individual consumer be held to be individually negotiated when, as well as altering the conditions on the limiting of interest rates, it imposes on the consumer the costs of amending the authentic instrument of loan and mortgage executed by the bank and the consumer, and when that agreement was proposed by the bank as one of the possible alternatives for altering the financial terms of the loan and was voluntarily accepted by the consumer following an agreement reached after negotiations between the bank and a mutual society of which the consumer is a member in the interests and to the benefit of the members of that mutual society?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, to be interpreted, with regard to the unfairness of the term, as precluding an agreement such as that described in the first question, having regard to the purpose and object of the agreement between the bank and the mutual society?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 January 1999 in Case T-230/95: Bretagne Angleterre Irlande (BAI) v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - State aid - Communication to the complainant of the decision addressed to the Member State concerned - Delay - Material and non-material damage - Causal link)

text:
27.3.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 86/15
                                                 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         4. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                    of 21 January 1999                                pay the defendant's costs.
in Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96: Neue
Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH                 5. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the
      v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                   United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                      Ireland to bear their own costs.
(ECSC Ð Action for annulment Ð State aid to steel
undertakings Ð Criterion of the conduct of a private
investor Ð Principle of proportionality Ð Statement of            (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995
                                                                      OJ C 64, 2.3.1996 and
             reasons Ð Right to a fair hearing)
                                                                      OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
                       (1999/C 86/30)
              (Language of the case: German)
In Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96: Neue Max-
                                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hütte      Stahlwerke       GmbH,        established      at
Sulzbach-Rosenberg (Germany), and Lech-Stahlwerke                                      of 28 January 1999
GmbH, estblished at Meitingen-Herbertshofen (Germany),
                                                                  in Case T-230/95: Bretagne Angleterre Irlande (BAI) v.
represented by Rainer M. Bierwagen, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (1)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger and Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich,                   (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð State
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: Ernst            aid Ð Communication to the complainant of the decision
Röder), v Commission of the European Communities                  addressed to the Member State concerned Ð Delay Ð
(Agents: Ulrich Wölker and Paul F. Nemitz), supported, in              Material and non-material damage Ð Causal link)
Cases T-2/96 and T-97/96, by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: Christopher Vajda                                   (1999/C 86/31)
and Lindsey Nicoll) Ð application, in Case T-129/95, for
annulment of Commission Decision Communitiesn
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
95/422/ECSC of 4 April 1995 concerning State aid that
the Freistaat Bayern, a regional authority of the Federal
Republic of Germany, intends to grant to the ECSC steel           In Case T-230/95: Bretagne Angleterre Irlande (BAI),
undertakings Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulz-                 established at Roscoff (France), represented by
bach-Rosenberg, and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen-              Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
Herbertshofen (OJ L 253, 21.10.1995, p. 22), in Case              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
T-2/96, for annulment of Commission Decision                      31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European
96/178/ECSC of 18 October 1995 on State aid that                  Communities (Agents: GeÂrard Rozet and Anders Christian
Bavaria granted to the ECSC steel undertaking Neue Max-           Jessen) Ð application for compensation for the damage
hütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg (OJ L 53,               allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the
2.3.1996, p. 41) and, in Case T-97/96, for annulment of           delayed communication to it by the Commission of the
Commission Decision 96/484/ECSC of 13 March 1996 on               text of its Decision of 7 June 1995 terminating the
State aid that Bavaria granted to the ECSC steel                  examination procedure initiated under Article 93(2) of the
undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-              EC Treaty concerning aid in favour of Ferries Golfo de
Rosenberg (OJ L 198, 8.8.1996, p. 40) Ð the Court of              Vizcaya SA Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,
First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),             Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
composed       of:   J.    Azizi,  President,     and     R.      President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura Ramos, J.
García-Valdecasas, R. M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P.            Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January 1999, in            28 January 1999, in which it:
which it:
                                                                  1. Dismisses the action.
1. Dismisses the application for confidential treatment.
2. Dismisses the application for access to the file relating      2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
    to the Commission's decision of 1 August 1988.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 77, 16.3.1996.
3. Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T-129/95,
    T-2/96 and T-97/96.


C 3/50                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
      Removal from the Register of Case T-247/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-225/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/86)                                                              (2002/C 3/89)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
By order of 20 September 2001, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 13 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-247/99, Flavia Angeletti and André Van Meuter v                    Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Case T-225/00: Andrea Gaul v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-167/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-55/01 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/87)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/90)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 14 September 2001, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 12 September 2001, the President of the Chamber
Case T-167/00: Jaume Costa v Commission of the European                   of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Communities.                                                              has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-55/01,
                                                                          Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-192/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/88)                                          Removal from the Register of Case T-112/01 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                   (2002/C 3/91)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Case T-192/00: Sabrina Tesoka v Commission of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-112/01: Ursula Klug v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.


title: Case T-78/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014  — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/46

         Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)
   (Case T-78/14)
   2014/C 135/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Köperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 in Case R 1272/2012-1 concerning the opposition proceedings No B 1 754 228 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455’ for goods in Class 29 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word elements ‘ANDECHSER NATUR’ and ‘ANDECHSER NATUR SEIT 1908’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-397/08: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/19

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-397/08) (1)

   2010/C 11/35

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-508/09: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2012 — Cañas v Commission (Competition — Anti-doping rules — Decision rejecting a complaint — Discontinuance of a professional activity — Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/28

         Order of the General Court of 26 March 2012 — Cañas v Commission
   (Case T-508/09) (1)

   (Competition - Anti-doping rules - Decision rejecting a complaint - Discontinuance of a professional activity - Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 151/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Guillermo Cañas (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented initially by F. Laboulfie and C. Aguet, then by Y. Bonnard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and J. Derenne, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: World Anti-Doping Agency (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, D. Cooper, Soliciitor, and N. Chesaites, Barrister); and ATP Tour, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Marchandise, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471 rejecting a complaint, for insufficient Community interest, concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, by ATP Tour, Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Guillermo Cañas is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The World Anti-Doping Agency and ATP Tour, Inc. are ordered to pay their own costs.

               4.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by European Elite Athletes Association.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.