title: Judgment of the Court 2 July 2002 in Case C-115/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster): Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service Sàrl v Finanzamt Borken (Transport of goods by road — Tax on motor vehicles — Member State of registration)

text:
C 233/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             28.9.2002
National legislation retroactively curtailing the period within which        1.     Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of
repayment may be sought of sums paid by way of VAT collected in                     25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which
breach of provisions with direct effect of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                       within a Member State precludes national provisions of a host
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                    Member State which entail the latter levying vehicle tax on the
tax: uniform basis of assessment, such as those in Article 11A(1), is               use of motor vehicles for the carriage of goods by road on the
incompatible with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection             ground that those vehicles have their regular base in the territory
of legitimate expectations.                                                         of that host Member State, when they are registered in the
                                                                                Member State of establishment and are used in the host
                                                                                Member State to carry out cabotage by road, in accordance
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                         with authorisations lawfully issued by the Member State of
                                                                                establishment.
                                                                             2.     Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993
                                                                                on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles
                                                                                used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for
                                                                                the use of certain infrastructures precludes national provisions
                                                                                of a host Member State, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 3118/93, which entail the levying by the latter
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             of vehicle tax on the use of motor vehicles for the carriage of
                                                                                goods by road on the ground that those vehicles have their
                                                                                regular base in the territory of that host Member State, when
                             2 July 2002
                                                                                they are registered and the tax referred to in Article 3(1) of that
                                                                                directive has been paid in the Member State of establishment
in Case C-115/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           and those vehicles are used in the host Member State for
the Finanzgericht Münster): Andreas Hoves Internationa-                             cabotage by road, in accordance with authorisations lawfully
      ler Transport-Service Sàrl v Finanzamt Borken (1)                             issued by the Member State of establishment.
(Transport of goods by road — Tax on motor vehicles —                        (1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                   Member State of registration)
                           (2002/C 233/09)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                11 July 2002
In Case C-115/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary                  in Case C-139/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                       ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service Sàrl and
Finanzamt Borken, on the interpretation of Article 6 of Council              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying                        Directive 89/369/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Munici-
down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may                        pal waste incineration plants on the island of La Palma)
operate national road haulage services within a Member State
(OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/
89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member                                                   (2002/C 233/10)
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,                                             in the European Court Reports)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar has given a judgment on 2 July 2002, in which it has               In Case C-139/00, Commission of the European Communities
ruled:                                                                       (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 April 1996 in Case T-274/94: Antonio Castellacci v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Household allowance - Criterion of residence - Allowance for a person treated as a dependent child - Recovery of undue payment)

text:
1 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 158/ 13
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 24 April 1996                                                      of 24 April 1996
in Joined Cases T-551 /93 , T-231/94 , T-232/94 , T-233/94                      in Case T-6/94 , A. v. European Parliament ( )
and T-234/94 Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA and Others                  (Officials — Unauthorized absence — Remuneration —
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                      Article 60 of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility)
(Community financial aid — Application for compensation                                            ( 96/C 158 /33 )
in the event ofnon-payment — Application for annulment
                  of decisions withdrawing aid)
                            ( 96/C 158 /32 )                                            (Language of the case: Frencb)
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                        In Case T-6/94 A, a former official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                        Catherine Thill-Kamitaki , of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
In Joined Cases T-551 /93 , T-231 /94, T-232/94 , T-233/94              address for service in Luxembourg at her Chambers ,
and T-234/94, Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA, a company                 15 Avenue du Bois, v. European Parliament (Agent: Ezio
with its registered office at Vigo ( Spain ), represented in Case       Perillo ) — application for an order requiring the European
T-551 /93 by Antonio Creus and Xavier Ruiz, both of the                 Parliament to pay to the applicant, pursuant to the fourth
Barcelona Bar, and by José Ramon Garci'a-Gallardo, of the               paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of Officials
Burgos Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at the              of the European Communities , the total due in respect of,
Cuatrecasas Chambers , 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, and in                    first, the salary not paid to her by the European Parliament
Case T-233/94 by Santiago Martinez Lage, Rafael                         for the months of December 1990 , February, March, May,
Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vias Alonso, all of the                June and half of July 1991 , second, the salary not paid to her
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                for the period from 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1992
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, Transacciones                 ( less the partial allowances received by her for that period )
Maritimas SA , Recursos Marinos SA, Makuspesca SA,                      and, third, the allowance to which she considers herself
companies with their registered offices at Vigo ( Spain ),              entitled for leave not taken in 1992 , together with interest
represented by Santiago Martinez Lage, Rafael                           thereon at the rate prescribed by law from the date when
 Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vias Alonso , all of the              each payment fell due until the date of actual payment — the
Madrid Bar, with and address for service in Luxembourg at               Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, against the                   of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
 Francisco Santaolalla, Amparo Alcover and Blanca Vila                  Administrator , for the Registrar , has given a judgment on
 Costa ) — application for, in Case T-551 /93 , compensation            24 April 1996 , in which it:
 for the loss caused to the applicant by the Commission's
 non-payment of the Community financial aid which it had                 1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 granted by its Decision C(89 ) 632/73 of 26 April 1989 ( file
 No ES/545/89/01 ) for the construction of the fishing vessel
 ' Escualo', and , in Cases T-231 /94 , T-232/94 , T-233/94 and         2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
 T-234/94, for the annulment, respectively, of Commission                     those relating to the application for interim measures.
 Decisions C(94 ) 670/ 1 , C(94 ) 670/2 , C(94 ) 670/3 and C(94 )
 670/4, whereby the Commission withdrew Community
                                                                         (') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
 financial aid granted to each of the four applicants for the
 construction of fishing vessels and required three of the
 applicants to repay the amounts already paid — the Court of
 First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 President, P. Lindh and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 24 April 1996 in which it:
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  1 , dismisses the actions for annulment in Cases T-231 /94,                                   of 25 April 1996
       T-232/94 , T-233 /94 and T-234/94 -,                              in Case T-274/94 : Antonio Castellacci v . Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities C )
                                                                         (Officials — Household allowance — Criterion ofresidence
 2 , dismisses the action for damages in Case T-551 /93;
                                                                         — Allowance for a person treated as a dependent child —
                                                                                Recovery of undue payment)
  3 , orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those of                                    ( 96/C 158/34 )
       the interim proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 and OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                         In Case T-274/94 : Antonio Castellacci, an official of the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, residing in
 ---pagebreak---  No C 158 / 14        EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
 Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                                of 21 March 1996
 of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission
 of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves             in Case T-161/95 : Lino Liao v. Council of the European
 Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for annulment,                                      Union (')
 first, of the decision adopted by the defendant on                  (Officials — Action for annulment of a staff report — Act
 24 November 1993 ( i ) withdrawing the household                   adversely affecting an official — Preparatory act — Action
 allowance and the allowance for a person treated as a                              for damages — Inadmissible)
 dependent child and ( ii ) providing for the recovery of the                                  ( 96/C 158/36 )
 allegedly undue payments made in respect of those
 allowances and , second, of the decision adopted by the
 defendant on 26 January 1994 laying down detailed                                 (Language of the case: French)
 measures for the repayment of the sums to be recovered
 pursuant to the aforesaid decision of 24 November 1993 —           In Case T-161 /95 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of the
 the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:        European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
 R. Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and             Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Constantin Nickis, of the
J. Azizi, Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April 1996 , in          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
which it :                                                          Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano
                                                                    and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for annulment of
 1 , dismises the action;                                           the Decision of the Council of 19 May 1 995 , which was
                                                                    adopted for the purposes of drawing up the applicant's staff
                                                                    report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , and
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     for compensation for the material and non-material loss
                                                                    allegedly suffered by him — the Court of First Instance
 (M OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,
                                                                    and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                    Registrar, made an order on 21 March 1996, the operative
                                                                    part of which is as follows :
                                                                    1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 4 March 1996                              2 . The patties are ordered to bear their own costs.
in Case T-3 92/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan v. Council of the
                      European Union (')                            (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                 (No need to give a decision)
                         ( 96/C 158/35 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Action brought on 22 February 1996 by J. Langdon Limited
In Case T-392/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, residing in Bella           against the Commission of the European Communities
Vista ( Ireland ), represented by Desmond O'Neill,
Barrister-at-Law, of the Bar of Ireland, v. Council of the                                  ( Case T-22/96 )
European Union ( Agents : Michael Bishop and Diego Canga                                      ( 96/C 158/37 )
Fano ) — application for the annulment of the Council
Decision of 1 6 September 1 994 not to admit the applicant to                     (Language of the case: English)
Open Competition Council/A/338 on the ground that the
application form was submitted out of time and for an order
that the Council pay him damages — the Court ( Fourth              An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh            Communities was brought before the Court of First
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order         Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
on 4 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 1996 by J. Langdon Limited, represented by Patrick
follows :                                                          O'Brien, Solicitor, and Patrick McCann, Barrister, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at Faltz & Associés , 6 rue
                                                                   Heine .
1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
2 . Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                   — annul the Commission's Decision C ( 95 ) 2726 final of
(M OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       3 November 1995 adressed to Ireland;
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-343/15: Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/48

         Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)
   (Case T-343/15)
   (2015/C 279/61)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 416 954

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2250/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-471/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2008 — Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2008 — Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj
   (Case C-471/08)
   (2009/C 19/22)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Helsingin käräjäoikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sanna Maria Parviainen

      Defendant: Finnair Oyj
   Question referred
   Is Article 11(1) of the Protection of Pregnant Workers Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a worker who is transferred to other lower-paid work because of her pregnancy must, on the basis of that provision, be paid as much as she received on average before the transfer, and is it relevant in that respect what kind of allowances and on what basis the worker was paid in addition to her basic monthly pay?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) OJ L 348, 1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-290/05: Action brought on 25 July 2005 — Friedrich Weber v Commission

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/12

         Action brought on 25 July 2005 — Friedrich Weber v Commission
   (Case T-290/05)
   (2005/C 257/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant: Friedrich Weber (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: W. Declair, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought:
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the defendant's decision of 27 May 2005 so that it is obligated to grant the applicant access, in accordance with its letters of 23 April 2005 and 27 April 2005, to documents in connection with the State aid proceedings E 3/2005 concerning the financing of public-law broadcasting bodies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the contested decision, the Commission refused the applicant's request for access to documents in connection with the State aid proceedings E 3/2005 concerning the financing of public-law broadcasting bodies with reference to the third indent of Article 4(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the openness regulation. (1)

   The applicant claims that there is a public interest in disclosure of the documents at issue.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.05.2001 p. 43).


title: Case T-492/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — von Storch and Others v ECB

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/18

         Action brought on 12 November 2012 — von Storch and Others v ECB
   (Case T-492/12)
   2013/C 32/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Sven A. von Storch (Berlin, Germany) and 5 216 others (represented by: M. Kerber and V. von Storch)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the decisions of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets incompatible with Articles 123 to 125 TFEU, declare the legal effect referred to in Article 264 TFEU and prevent further implementation;

               —

               declare the decision of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on additional measures to preserve collateral availability for counterparties in order to maintain their access to the Eurosystem’s liquidity-providing operators incompatible with Articles 123 to 125 TFEU, declare the legal effect referred to in Article 264 TFEU and prevent further implementation;

               —

               in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The decisions in dispute infringe Articles 123 to 125 TFEU. In that regard, the applicants claim that Article 123 TFEU prohibits monetising State debt and that on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 (1) that prohibition applies generally, namely to the primary and secondary markets.

               2.

               Furthermore, the ECB infringes Article 127 TFEU. The applicants claim that the ECB’s monetary mandate is aimed at price stability. By implementing the measures, the ECB is carrying out fiscal policy and is acting ultra vires.

               3.

               Also the contested decisions are contrary to Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition (2) together with Article 51 TEU. According to the applicants, the acquisition of government securities from States in a state of financial emergency constitutes direct intervention in a market sector which is characterised by oversupply. That acquisition constitutes an artificial reduction in supply with corresponding effects on the current yield of those securities which are incompatible with the principles of undistorted competition.

               4.

               The ECB is acting contrary to the combined provisions of Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of the ESCB/ECB statute (3) as the President of the ECB succumbed to pressure to adopt the contested decisions.

               5.

               The acquisition of government securities which is motivated by considerations of fiscal policy rather than monetary policy, and which does not seek to guarantee price stability, adversely affects the markets and accordingly threatens confidence in an independent monetary policy. In the applicants’ opinion, it follows from the rules of the European monetary union that they have a right to demand the discontinuance of manifestly destabilising conduct which is incompatible in particular with Article 123 and Article 125 TFEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 of 13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 104 and 104b (1) of the Treaty (OJ 1993 L 332, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2010 C 83, p. 309.

      (3)  Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 230).


title: Case T-174/10: Action brought on 12 April 2010 — ARA v OHIM — Allrounder (Representation of the letter ‘A’ with two horns)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/41

         Action brought on 12 April 2010 — ARA v OHIM — Allrounder (Representation of the letter ‘A’ with two horns)
   (Case T-174/10)
   2010/C 179/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ara AG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allrounder SARL (Saarburg, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2010 in case R 481/2009-1; and

               —

               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: Allrounder SARL.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing the letter ‘A’ with two horns, for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular, a word mark ‘A’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Action dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-451/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2008 — Helmut Müller GmbH v Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2008 — Helmut Müller GmbH v Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben
   (Case C-451/08)
   (2009/C 6/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helmut Müller GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it a requirement, in order for there to be a public works contract under Art. 1(2)(b) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, that the works be physically carried out for the public contracting authority and bring it an immediate economic benefit?

               2.

               In so far as, according to the definition of a public works contract in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC, the element of procurement is indispensable: Is procurement to be regarded as having taken place, in accordance with the second variant of the provision, if the intended works for the public contracting authority fulfil a particular public purpose (for example the development of part of a town) and the public contracting authority has the legal right under the contract to ensure that the public purpose is achieved and that the necessary works will be available?

               3.

               Does the concept of a public works contract in accordance with the first and second variants of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC require that the contractor be directly or indirectly obliged to provide the works. If so, must there be a legally enforceable obligation?

               4.

               Does the concept of a public works contract in accordance with the third variant of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC require that the contractor be obliged to carry out works, or that works form the subject-matter of the contract?

               5.

               Do contracts by which, through the requirements specified by the public contracting authority, it is intended to ensure that the works to be carried out for a particular public purpose be available, and by which (by contractual stipulation) the contracting body is given the legal power to ensure (in its own indirect interest) the availability of the works for the public purpose, fall within the third variant of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC?

               6.

               Is the concept of ‘requirements specified by the contracting authority’ in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC fulfilled, if the works are to be carried out in accordance with plans examined and approved by the public contracting authority?

               7.

               Must there be held to be no public works concession under Article 1(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, if the concessionaire is or will become the owner of the land on which the works are to be carried out, or the concession is granted for an indeterminate period?

               8.

               Does Directive 2004/18/EC — with the legal consequence of an obligation on the public contracting authority to invite tenders — apply if a sale of land by a third party and the award of a public works contract take place at different times and on the conclusion of the land sale the public works contract has not yet been awarded, but at the last-mentioned time there was, on the part of the public authority, the intention to award such a contract?

               9.

               Are separate but related transactions concerning a sale of land and a public works contract to be regarded from the point of view of the law on the awarding of contracts as a unity, if at the time the land sale contract was entered into the award of a public works contract was intended and the participants deliberately created a close connection between the contracts from a substantive — and possibly also temporal — point of view (see Case C-29/04 Commission v Austria [2005] I 9722)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-470/02 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2002 by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) against the judgment delivered on 8 October 2002 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00 between Métropole télévision SA (M6), Antena 3 de Televisión, SA, Gestevisión Telecinco, SA, SIC-Sociedade Independente de Communicação, SA, supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH (DSF) and Reti Televisive Italiane Spa (RTI) and Commission of the European Communities, supported by European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Radiotelevisión Española (RTVE)

text:
8.3.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Appeal brought on 23 December 2002 by the European
                                                                             Broadcasting Union (EBU) against the judgment delivered
                                                                             on 8 October 2002 by the Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                             Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
(Public storage        of olive oil, financial correction of                 pean Communities in Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00,
EUR 37 621,55)                                                               T-299/00 and T-300/00 between Métropole télévision SA
                                                                             (M6), Antena 3 de Televisión, SA, Gestevisión Telecinco,
                                                                             SA, SIC-Sociedade Independente de Communicação, SA,
The successful tenderer fulfilled its obligation to communicate              supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH (DSF)
its refusal to take over the lot, informing and notifying the                and Reti Televisive Italiane Spa (RTI) and Commission
Commission thereof in fulfilment of its obligation under                     of the European Communities, supported by European
Article 10 of Regulation No 561/99 ( 2).                                     Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Radiotelevisión Española
                                                                                (RTVE)
Secondly, return of the securities did not result in any loss to
the Community budget since the oil in question continued to                                         (Case C-470/02 P)
form part of the intervention stock, subject to that body of
rules and available to cover future operations, just as if refusal
had been communicated by the successful tenderer directly to                                          (2003/C 55/22)
the Commission.
                                                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 October 2002
(Areas harvested for pasture by the paying agency of Castile                 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
and Leon, financial correction of EUR 1 229 951,00)                          of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                             Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00 between
                                                                             Métropole télévision SA (M6), Antena 3 de Televisión, SA,
The corrections relating to the 1998 and 1999 harvests are                   Gestevisión Telecinco, SA, SIC-Sociedade Independente de
the result of applying 2 % to the result of dividing the total               Communicação, SA, supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen
declared area in cases where the discrepancies detected during               GmbH (DSF) and Reti Televisive Italiane Spa (RTI) and
administrative checks were in excess of 3 % or 2 hectares into               Commission of the European Communities, supported by
the total declared area.                                                     European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Radiotelevisión
                                                                             Española (RTVE) was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                             the European Communities on 23 December 2002 by the
Spain does not agree with the Commission on the proposed                     European Broadcasting Union (EBU), represented by D. Wael-
financial correction because, first, Community legislation (3)               broeck and M. Johnsson, lawyers.
does not mean that the results of the administrative checks
should be included in the risk analysis when selecting the
checks to be made on the spot and, secondly, handling of the
applications for ‘area’ aid makes it impossible to carry out all             The appellant claims that the Court should:
the administrative checks before on-the-spot checks are carried
out.                                                                         —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                the European Communities of 8 October 2002 in Joined
                                                                                Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00,
Nonetheless, in the Autonomous Community of Castile and                            Métropole Télévision and Others v Commission;
Leon cases in which irregularities have been detected in
the administrative checks carried out the previous year are
systematically included as a risk criterion when selecting the               —     send the case back to the Court of First Instance so that it
sample of cases for on-the-spot checks.                                            may rule on the other pleas in law raised by the applicants
                                                                                on which it has not yet ruled;
( 1) Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 exclud-              —     reserve the costs.
     ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
     the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002 L
     306, p. 26.
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 561/1999 of 15 March 1999 on              Pleas in law and main arguments
     the opening of a standing invitation to tender for the sale of olive
     oil held by the Spanish intervention agency, OJ L 69, 16.1.1999,
     p. 13.
( 3) Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of               By basing its reasoning on arguments that were not raised by
     23 December 1992, OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.                                 the applicants, the Court of First Instance has ruled ultra petita
                                                                             and infringed the rights of the defence of the EBU and of the
                                                                             Commission. The decisive element for the Court of First
                                                                             Instance is the application of the sub-licensing scheme for ‘live
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
broadcast of un-used Eurovision rights’, when such a ground             Action brought on 7 January 2003 by the Hellenic
was not argued before it. By so doing, the Court of First               Republic against the Community of the European Com-
Instance deprived the EBU of its right, as a party to the                                           munities
proceedings, to refute the points accepted by the Court. By
thus challenging a relatively marginal but no less essential
aspect such as the sub-licensing scheme rather than the                                           (Case C-5/03)
Eurovision system itself or the substance of the sub-licensing
scheme introduced at the behest of the Commission, the Court
of First Instance in fact requires the EBU to adjust that scheme                                 (2003/C 55/24)
in order to grant access to non-members to rights which the
latter have not asked for nor, doubtless, wish to ask for.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought on 7 January 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                        represented by Stilianis Xharitakis and Eleni Svolopoulou,
                                                                        members of the State legal service, with an address for service
                                                                        in Luxembourg at the Greek embassy, 27 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Düsseldorf by order of that Court of 5 December                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
2002 in the case of GAT, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik
mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau
                        Beteiligungs KG                                 —     Annul, or amend, Decision E/2002/4127 concerning
                                                                              the exclusion from Community financing of certain
                                                                              expenditure incurred by the Member States within the
                          (Case C-4/03)                                       context of the EAGGF — Guarantee section.
                         (2003/C 55/23)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                  The financial corrections called in question by the Hellenic
Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf) of 5 December             Republic concern fruit and vegetables and financing for beef
2002, received at the Court Registry on 6 January 2003, for a           cattle and goats and sheep.
preliminary ruling in the case of GAT, Gesellschaft für
Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und
Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG on the following question:
                                                                        As regards fruit and vegetables, the Hellenic Republic maintains
                                                                        that the 2 % correction imposed for the years 1997 to 2001
                                                                        concern non-existent or wholly isolated infringements of the
Is Article 16(4) of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the              Community rules and must be annulled for being adopted
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                (a) on the basis of an erroneous interpretation and a misappli-
(‘the Brussels Convention’) to be interpreted as meaning that           cation of the provisions of Regulation No 729/70, as amended;
the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by that provision on the           (b) on the basis of inadequate reasoning; (c) following a
courts of the Contracting State in which the deposit or                 misappraisal of the factual circumstances; (d) on the basis of a
registration of a patent has been applied for, has taken place          manifest infringement of the limits of its margin of discretion,
or is under the terms of an international convention deemed             and (e) of the principle of proportionality.
to have taken place only applies if proceedings (with erga
omnes effect) are brought to declare the patent invalid or are
proceedings deemed to be concerned with the validity of
patents within the meaning of the aforementioned provision              As regards financing for beefcattle and goats and sheep, the
where the defendant in a patent infringement action or the              applicant maintains that the Commission did not provide
claimant in a declaratory action to establish that a patent is          adequate evidence of the degree of risk to which, in its
not infringed pleads that the patent is invalid or a nullity and        estimation, EAGGF Funds were exposed so as to ensure that
that there is also no patent infringement for that reason,              the amount of the corrections proposed was commensurate
irrespective of whether the court seised of the proceedings             with that risk. In its view the financial corrections in the
considers the plea to be substantiated or unsubstantiated and           amount of 10 % or 5 % imposed in those sectors should be set
of when the plea is raised during the course of the proceedings.        aside or else reduced to 2 %.


               2.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 150/12

         Action brought on 30 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-5/09)
   2009/C 150/13
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA
               and

               2.

               The Republic of Iceland bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               the present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance directive,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Icelandic law,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not implemented the directive.


title: Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-127/05 ( OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 28 )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/43

         Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-127/05

      (
            ‘Official Journal of the European Union ’C 56, 10 March 2007, p. 28
         )

   (2007/C 96/90)
   The notice to the OJ in Case T-127/05 Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council is to be read as follows:

         ‘Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 — Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council
         (Case T-127/05) (1)

         (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 - Fisheries - Fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 - Persons directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
         (2007/C 56/56)
         Language of the case: English
         Parties

            Applicant: Lootus Teine Osaühing (Lootus) (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Sild and K. Martin, Lawyers)

            Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. Westerhof Lörefflerova, Agents)

            Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent)

            Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Banks, Agent)
         Re:
         Action for annulment in part of, first, the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 1) and, second, Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 4), in so far as those provisions concern the fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia.
         Operative part of the order

                     1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                     2.

                     The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

                     3.

                     The Commission shall bear its own costs.’

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-209/02 and T-210/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 March 2006  — Mausolf v Europol (Europol staff — Remuneration — Steps granted on the basis of an appraisal — Director's decision)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2006 — Mausolf v Europol
   (Case T-209/02 and T-210/04) (1)

   (Europol staff - Remuneration - Steps granted on the basis of an appraisal - Director's decision)
   (2006/C 121/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Mausolf (Leiden, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Baltusen and P. de Casparis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: K. Hennessy-Massaro and D. Heimans initially, then K. Hennessy-Massaro, N. Urban and D. Neumann, Agents)
   Application for
   Firstly, annulment of the decision of 23 November 2001, by which the director of Europol promoted the applicant by one step with effect from 1 July 2001, and also of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's complaint against that decision and, secondly, annulment of the decisions of 2 January 2003 and 1 March 2004, by which the director of Europol decided not to promote the applicant by a further step with effect from 1 July 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-191/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — Yorma’s AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/11

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — Yorma’s AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-191/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion)
   2012/C 133/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Yorma’s AG (represented by: A. Weiß, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case T-213/09 Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) dismissing the application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 refusing registration of the figurative sign with the word element ‘yorma’s’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 35 and 42 and upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘NORMA’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks and services concerned — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Yorma’s AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-394/09: Action brought on 5 October 2009 — General Bearing v OHIM (GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/26

         Action brought on 5 October 2009 — General Bearing v OHIM (GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION)
   (Case T-394/09)
   2009/C 297/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): General Bearing Corp. (West Nyack, United States) (represented by: A. Dellmeier-Beschorner, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 July 2009 in case R 73/2009-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to register the Community trade mark concerned;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court; and

               —

               Set a date for an oral hearing if such is deemed necessary.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION” for goods in classes 7 and 12

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as well as of general principles of trademark law, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned is not eligible for registration due to the fact that it is a purely descriptive term.


title: Case F-119/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/56

         Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-119/15)
   (2015/C 354/67)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.


title: Case C-173/12 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2012 by Verenigde Douaneagenten BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 10 February 2012 in Case T-32/11 Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/4

         Appeal brought on 11 April 2012 by Verenigde Douaneagenten BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 10 February 2012 in Case T-32/11 Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission
   (Case C-173/12 P)
   2012/C 184/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Verenigde Douaneagenten BV (represented by: S.H.L. Moolenaar, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court in accordance with the pleas put forward in this appeal;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The
                     first two pleas
                   concern errors of law, in so far as the General Court held that the respondent was right to conclude that the EUR.1 movement certificates were issued on the basis of an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter.
               The General Court relies in this respect on several letters, sent to the Departement van Economische Zaken (Department of Economic Affairs), dating from over two and a half years before the actual export which are open to a number of interpretations, as well as on an inadvertent incorrect interpretation of the cumulation rules; the General Court disregards the fact that these rules are regarded by the authorities themselves as very complex.
               In addition, the General Court fails to have regard to the fact that the Netherlands customs authorities declared in the proceedings before the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam that they were unable to prove that the issue of the certificates in question in relation to the EUR.1 certificates is attributable to the incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter.

               2.

               The
                     third, fourth and fifth pleas
                   concern errors of law, in so far as the General Court held that the Curaçao customs authorities did not know or could not have known that the goods in question were not eligible for preferential treatment at the time of issue of the EUR.1 movement certificates.
               In the appellant’s submission, in its findings, the General Court fails to have regard to the fact that the Departement of Economic Affairs in Curaçao did at least one check on the location of the exporter before the issue of the EUR.1 movement certificates. In addition, the General Court fails to have regard to the fact that, when issuing an EUR.1 movement certificate, the customs authorities in Curaçao check the origin of the sugar in question in conjunction with the processing thereof so as to verify the rules chosen.
               The General Court also fails to have regard to the fact that the EUR.1 movement certificates were issued by the customs authorities on the basis of certificates of Form A origin (‘Form A’), pursuant to which it is not possible to issue an EUR.1 movement certificate.
               When the raw materials enter Curaçao, those customs authorities take delivery of the Form As. The appellant cannot be blamed for the fact that these very forms were lost in a fire in the archives of the customs authorities in Curaçao. Since the archives have been destroyed, it is no longer possible to determine which documents were present in the customs authorities’ file.
               In the appellant’s submission, the General Court’s conclusion that the administrator would have given these documents to the respondent’s mission if the documents had been present in the administration is not sound. That consideration alone cannot lead to the conclusion that the Form As were not present there, in the light of all the foregoing considerations.


title: Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Austrian banking market — Lombard Club — Effect on trade between Member States — Calculation of fines)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Austrian banking market - ‘Lombard Club’ - Effect on trade between Member States - Calculation of fines)
   (2006/C 331/65)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer) (Case T-259/02); Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (Vienna) (represented by: C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, lawyers) (Case T-260/02); Anteilsverwaltung BAWAG PSK AG, formerly Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, (Vienna) (represented by: initially H.-J. Niemeyer and M. von Hinden and then by H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) (Case T-261/02); Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien AG (Vienna) (represented by: H. Wollmann, lawyer) (Case T-262/02); BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, formerly Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna) (represented by: initially H.-J. Niemeyer and M. von Hinden and then by H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) (Case T-263/02); Erste Bank der oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG (Vienna) (represented by: initially W. Kirchhoff, F. Montag, G. Bauer and A. Wegner and then by F. Montag et A. Wegner, lawyers) (Case T 264/02); Österreichische Volksbanken AG (Vienna) and Niederösterreichische Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG (St. Pölten, Austria) (represented by: R. Roniger, A. Ablasser, R. Bierwagen et F. Neumayr, lawyers) (Case T-271/02)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially S. Rating and then by A. Bouquet, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister, lawyers)
   Re:
   Primarily, applications for annulment in full or in part of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) (OJ 2004 L 56, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               In Case T-263/02, reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, the predecessor in title of the applicant, by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) to EUR 3 795 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               In Case T-259/02, dismisses the Commission's counterclaim;

               4.

               In Cases T-260/02 to T-262/02, T-264/02 and T-271/02, orders the applicants to pay the costs;

               5.

               In Case T-259/02, orders the applicant to bear its own costs and 90 % of the Commission's costs. The Commission is to bear 10 % of its own costs;

               6.

               In Case T-263/02, orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-141/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA, Colombo New Scal SpA, Italian Republic (Appeals — Commercial policy — Dumping — Imports of ironing boards originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Articles 2(7)(c) and 20(4) and (5) — Market economy treatment — Rights of the defence — Anti-dumping investigation — Periods granted to undertakings to submit their representations)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA, Colombo New Scal SpA, Italian Republic
   (Case C-141/08 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of ironing boards originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 2(7)(c) and 20(4) and (5) - Market economy treatment - Rights of the defence - Anti-dumping investigation - Periods granted to undertakings to submit their representations)
   2009/C 282/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and G. Vallera, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, E. McGovern, Barrister, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, T. Scharf and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents), Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA, Colombo New Scal SpA (represented by: G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, Rechtsanwälte), the Italian Republic (represented by: R. Adam, Agent, and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 January 2008 in Case T-206/07 Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the appellant for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12), inasmuch as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by the appellant — Error of law as a result of the material inaccuracy of the findings made by the Court of First Instance and the absence of any penalty for the breach of the rights of the defence established by the Court of First Instance — Interpretation of Articles 2(7)(c) and 20(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Notion of an undertaking ‘operating in market economy conditions’ and scope of the minimum period of 10 days granted to an undertaking subject to an anti-dumping investigation to submit any representations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2008 in Case T-206/07 Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council in so far as the Court of First Instance found that Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd’s rights of defence were not adversely affected by the infringement of Article 20(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine, in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd.;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the cost of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA, Colombo New Scal SpA and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case C-506/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-561/13 Spain v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/24

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-561/13 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-506/15 P)
   (2015/C 381/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims the court should:

               —

               In any event, allow the appeal and annul in part the judgment of the General Court, delivered on 15 July 2015, in Case T-561/13.

               —

               Annul in part the contested decision to the extent that it excludes the expenditure, amounting to EUR 7 57  968,97, incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the context of the Indemnizaciones Compensatorias de las Desventajas Naturales (ICDN) (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps; CANH) aid of Galicia’s 2007-2013 Rural Development programme in respect of ‘natural handicaps (measures 211 and 212)’.

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Grounds of Appeal and main arguments

      First ground: In the first ground of appeal, the Kingdom of Spain contends that the General Court erred in law in not holding, of its own motion, that there was a substantial procedural defect, in that the European Commission adopted the contested decision outside a reasonable period.

      Second ground: In the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law by infringing Articles 10 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (1) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures and Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, by holding that those provisions obliged the Spanish authorities to carry out a census of the animals during the on-the-spot checks.

      (1)  OJ L 368, p. 74.

      (2)  OJ L 141, p. 18.


title: Case T-603/15: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Frank v Commission (Action for annulment — Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible — Implied decision of the Commission rejecting the administrative appeal relating to the decision of the ERCEA — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/19

         Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Frank v Commission
   (Case T-603/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 - Decision of the ERCEA declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible - Implied decision of the Commission rejecting the administrative appeal relating to the decision of the ERCEA - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 178/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially W. Trautner, subsequently by E. Niitväli and M. Reysen, then by E. Niitväli, M. Reysen and S. Wachs, and finally S. Conrad, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 5 June 2015 relating, in the context of the ‘ERC starting grant’ programme, to proposal No 680151 of the applicant — which was not given a positive evaluation during step 1 and was not admitted to step 2 of the evaluation — and the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal pursuant to Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Regine Frank and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case C-376/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 22 June 2017 — The Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General v Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 22 June 2017 — The Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General v Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski
   (Case C-376/17)
   (2017/C 283/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

      Defendant: Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a person is convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction in a member state and the original sentence imposed on him is altered on appeal and that sentence (as altered on appeal) is subsequently both suspended and reactivated following the quashing of the suspension in question, should the term ‘the trial’ as used in Article 4a of the Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as:

                           a)

                           referring only to the process leading to the finding of guilt and the imposition of the original sentence (‘the original sentence’); or

                           b)

                           referring to (a) above and/or any or all of the following:

                                       i)

                                       the process of any appeal following (a) and where by the original sentence is altered on appeal (‘the altered sentence’);

                                       ii)

                                       the process leading to the subsequent suspension of the altered sentence (or part thereof);

                                       iii)

                                       the process leading to the revocation of suspension of the altered sentence (or part thereof).

               2.

               In the event that the term ‘the trial’ is to be interpreted as referring to or including the process of any appeal leading to the altered sentence, is the absence of a reference to the fact that the person whose surrender is sought was notified of and represented at, the appeal in question fatal to the validity of the European Arrest Warrant notwithstanding the fact that, as a result of additional information supplied in the course of the process in the requested state, it becomes clear as a matter of fact that the person concerned was actually notified of and represented in the appeal process.

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-532/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Coral Venture v SRB

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/22

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Coral Venture v SRB
   (Case T-532/17)
   (2017/C 357/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Coral Venture, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Niño Camazón, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Take note of the annulment proceedings against the resolution issued by the SRB on 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) agreeing to the resolution of the institution Banco Popular and approving the resolution scheme containing the resolution measures to apply to that institution and, following the appropriate procedural steps, grant the forms of order sought.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-210/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Medicom sprl

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Medicom sprl
   (Case C-210/11)
   2011/C 211/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge

      Defendant: Medicom sprl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) to be interpreted as precluding the private use by the mangers, administrators or members and their families of a company with legal personality that is liable to tax of all or part of a property forming part of the assets of the company and thus treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of the business, from being treated as an exempt supply of services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), where there is no provision for payment of rent in money as consideration for that use, which amounts to a benefit in kind that is taxed as such for the purpose of the managers’ income tax and such use is therefore regarded for tax purposes as the consideration for a proportion of the work performed by the managers, administrators or members?

               2.

               Are those provisions to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies in such circumstances where the company fails to prove that there is an essential link between the operation of the business and the making available of all or part of the property to the managers, administrators or members and, if so, is an indirect link sufficient?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, P. 1.


title: Case T-320/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Planet v Commission (Protection of the financial interests of the Union — Early warning system (EWS) enabling identification of the level of risk associated with contractors — OLAF enquiry into the performance of a public contract concerning an institutional modernisation project in Syria — Decisions to activate W1a and W1b warnings — Legal basis — Fundamental rights — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Planet v Commission
   (Case T-320/09) (1)

   ((Protection of the financial interests of the Union - Early warning system (EWS) enabling identification of the level of risk associated with contractors - OLAF enquiry into the performance of a public contract concerning an institutional modernisation project in Syria - Decisions to activate W1a and W1b warnings - Legal basis - Fundamental rights - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 190/08)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the applicant’s registration in the early warning system (‘EWS’), by activation initially of a W1a warning and subsequently of a W1b warning.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the registration of Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion in the early warning system (EWS), and those of the European Commission concerning the activation of a W1a warning and a W1b warning concerning that undertaking;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-598/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index) (Community Trade mark — Application for Community word mark Lean Performance Index — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/73

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)
   (Case T-598/11) (1)

   (Community Trade mark - Application for Community word mark Lean Performance Index - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/162
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Marten and R. Pethke, Agents)

      Objet

   Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 131/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Lean Performance Index as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-302/12: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2014  — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Lorenzo Pato Hermanos (Decoration for packaging)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/59

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2014 — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Lorenzo Pato Hermanos (Decoration for packaging)
   (Case T-302/12) (1)

   2014/C 292/74
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 1999 in Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation v Commission of the European Communities (Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
16.10.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 299/23
   JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 19 July 1999                                                        of 21 May 1999
in Case T-14/98: Heidi Hautala v Council of the European                 in Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers
                              Union (1)                                  Fællesorganisation v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
(Public right of access to Council documents — Decision
93/731/EC — Exceptions to the principle of access to                                    (Case not proceeding to judgment)
documents — Protection of the public interest concerning
            international relations — Partial access)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/31)
                         (1999/C 299/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba, established at Viby
                                                                         (Denmark), and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation, estab-
In Case T-14/98: Heidi Hautala, residing in Helsinki, represent-         lished at Århus (Denmark), represented by G. Lett, of the
ed by Onno W. Brouwer and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels               Copenhagen Bar, and N. Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by                     R. Assa, 1 Rue J.P. Brasseur, v Commission of the European
Republic of Finland (Agents: Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä)            Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. Støvlbæk),
and Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: Lotty Nordling, Karin Kussak,             supported by the Hellenic Republic, the Council of the
Kristina Svahn Starrsjö and Anders Kruse) v Council of the               European Union and Koinopraktiki Tyrokomion Monadon
European Union (Agents: Jill Aussant, Giorgio Maganza and                Ioanninon Pindos AEBE — application for annulment of
Martin Bauer) supported by French Republic (Agents: Kareen               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
Rispal-Bellanger and Denys Wibaux) — application for annul-              the registration of geographical indications and designations
ment of the Council’s decision of 4 November 1997 to refuse              of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
the applicant access to a document — the Court of First                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1)
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, Presi-             in so far as concerns the registration of feta as a protected
dent, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has         designation of origin — the Court of First Instance (Third
given a judgment on 19 July 1999, in which it:                           Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts
                                                                         and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                         20 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 4 November 1997 refusing the
    applicant access to the report of the Working Group on
    Conventional Arms Exports;                                           1. There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
2. Orders the Council to pay the costs;                                  2. The applicants and the Commission are ordered to bear their
                                                                             own costs;
3. Orders the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the
    French Republic to bear their own costs.                             3. The interveners are each ordered to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.                                                 (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case T-108/05: Action brought on 22 February 2005 by Suzy Frederic-Leemans against the European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/30

         Action brought on 22 February 2005 by Suzy Frederic-Leemans against the European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case T-108/05)
   (2005/C 115/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Economic and Social Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by Suzy Frederic-Leemans, residing in Lahas (France), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the applicant's May 2004 pension statement, so as to apply a correction coefficient at the level of the capital of her country of residence or, at least, a correction coefficient which appropriately reflects the differences in the costs of living in the place where the applicant is deemed to incur her expenditure and therefore complying with the principle of equivalence;

               2.

               order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and arguments relied upon in this case are similar to those invoked in Case T-35/05 Elisabeth Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission.