title: Judgment of the Court of 11 May 1999 in Case C-309/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse (Equal pay for men and women)

text:
C 204/14                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    stelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener
                                                                            Gebietskrankenkasse — on the interpretation of Article 119
                            of 11 May 1999                                  of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) and
                                                                            Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
in Case C-255/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the Handelsgericht Wien): Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH v                        the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
                   Löwa Warenhandel GmbH (1)                                women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) — the Court, composed of:
                                                                            G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-
(Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 teur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C.
Articles 28 EC and 43 EC) — Industrial and commercial                       Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragne-
                       property — Trade name)                               malm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
                                                                            D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
                            (1999/C 204/25)                                 trar, has given a judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it has
                                                                            ruled:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            The term ‘the same work’ does not apply, for the purposes of Article
                                                                            119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) or
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                     in the European Court Reports)                         approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                            application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, where
In Case C-255/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  the same activities are performed over a considerable length of time
EC (ex Article 177) from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for              by persons the basis of whose qualification to exercise their profession
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 is different.
court between Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH and Löwa Waren-
handel GmbH — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 52
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and                  (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
43 EC) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.L. Mur-
ray, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; J.
Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment or 11 May 1999, in                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles
28 EC and 43 EC) do not preclude a provision of national law which                                    of 11 May 1999
prohibits, where there is a risk of confusion, the use of a trade name
as the specific designation of an undertaking.                              in Case C-350/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Wilfried Monsees v
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                                Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (1)
                                                                            (Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                            amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) — Free movement
                                                                            of goods — Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and
                                                                            measures having equivalent effect — Derogations — Protec-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    tion of health and life of animals — International transport
                                                                                of live animals for slaughter)
                            of 11 May 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 204/27)
in Case C-309/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Angestelltenbetriebsrat der                                       (Language of the case: German)
Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskranken-
                                kasse (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  (Equal pay for men and women)                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (1999/C 204/26)                                 In Case C-350/97: reference to the Court under Article
                                                                            234 EC (ex Article 177) by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
                                                                            (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    (Language of the case: German)                          proceedings pending before that court between Wilfried
                                                                            Monsees and Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Joined party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr —
                     in the European Court Reports)                         on the interpretation of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) and
In Case C-309/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  other provisions of Community law relating to the transport
EC (ex Article 177) by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher                   of live animals for slaughter — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Regional Court), Vienna, Austria for a preliminary ruling in                composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the proceedings pending before that court between Ange-                     J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and


title: Case F-25/10: Action brought on 28 April 2010 — AG (*) v Parliament

text:
                  19.6.2010

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 161/58

         Action brought on 28 April 2010 — AG (*1) v Parliament
         (Case F-25/10)
         (2010/C 161/95)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: AG (*1) (represented by: S. Rodriguez and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Parliament

            Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

         Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period and compensation for the loss suffered.

            Form of order sought

                     —

                     Annul the dismissal decision of 14 May 2009, together with the decision of 21 December 2009 rejecting the complaint;

                     —

                     Indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects which the annulment of the contested decisions entail and, in particular, the possibility of a second probationary period or an extension of the probationary period, after which a new assessment of her performance would be carried out;

                     —

                     Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of data and/or confidentiality.


title: Case T-704/15: Action brought on 28 November 2015 — Micula e.a. v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/30

         Action brought on 28 November 2015 — Micula e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-704/15)
   (2016/C 068/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Viorel Micula (Oradea, Romania), European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania), Rieni Drinks SA (Rieni, Romania), Transilvania General Import-Export SRL (Oradea), West Leasing International SRL (Pantasesti, Romania) (represented by: J. Derenne, A. Dashwood, D. Vallindas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

               —

               alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as

                           i.

                           it identifies Viorel Micula as an ‘undertaking’, and therefore part of the alleged single economic unit constituting the beneficiary of the aid,

                           ii.

                           identifies the beneficiary of the aid as a single economic unit comprising Viorel Micula, Ioan Micula, S.C. European Food SA, S.C. Starmill S.R.L., S.C. Multipack, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Scandic Distilleries SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL, and

                           iii.

                           orders, at Article 2(2), that Viorel Micula, Ioan Micula, S.C. European Food SA, S.C. Starmill S.R.L., S.C. Multipack, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Scandic Distilleries SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL, and West Leasing SRL shall be jointly liable to repay the State aid received by any one of them;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence and misuse of powers. By its mischaracterisation of the execution of the ICSID arbitral award (the ‘Award’) as the granting of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission is effectively asserting powers, which it enjoys in relation to State aid granted by Romania following that country’s accession to the EU, retrospectively to the pre-accession period. The Commission manifestly lacks competence to use its State aid powers in this way. The adoption of a decision having such purpose and effect further entails the misuse of those powers.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           First, the decision does not demonstrate the existence of an economic advantage as it identifies the execution/implementation of the Award as the incompatible aid. The present case meets the conditions of the Asteris case-law (judgment of 27 September 1988 in Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87). Any advantage (quod non) pre-dates Romania’s accession to the EU and is thus outside the scope of EU State aid rules. Second, the decision does not demonstrate the existence of selectivity. The Bilateral Investment Treaty Romania-Sweden (‘BIT’ — the legal basis of the Award) establishes a system of general liability that is equally applicable to any investor. Third, the decision does not demonstrate that the measure in question is imputable to the Romanian State. Romania has no margin of appreciation to execute the Award.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law. Article 351 TFEU protects the obligations incurred by Romania through the execution of the BIT with Sweden, while it was still an agreement between a Member State (Sweden) and a third country (Romania), against any possible post-accession effects of the EU State aid rules.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The EU authorities actively encouraged the conclusion of BITs, and consequently caused to entertain a legitimate expectation that an effort to enforce such a BIT through arbitration would not be blocked e.g. under State aid rules.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging in the alternative, that the alleged aid should be considered as compatible aid. The national measure in question which was at the origin of the arbitration and the Award was never the subject of a definitive finding of incompatibility. In any event, it would have been compatible with EU State aid rules.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the decision incorrectly determines the beneficiaries of the alleged aid. The decision does not demonstrate either that Viorel and Ioan Micula form part of the alleged single economic unit, or that there is a single economic unit in this case.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging errors in the recovery ordered by the decision. As the decision incorrectly determines the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, it orders the recovery from individuals and companies which are not beneficiaries of the alleged aid.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of an essential procedural requirement (right to be heard). The decision opening the formal investigation procedure did not mention at any point the applicants European Drinks, Rieni Drinks, West Leasing and Transilvania General Import-Export.


title: Case T-498/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2009 — Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group v Council (Dumping — Imports of glyphosate originating in China — Status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2009 — Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group v Council
   (Case T-498/04) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of glyphosate originating in China - Status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
   2009/C 180/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd (Jiande City, China) (represented by: initially D. Horovitz, lawyer, and B. Hartnett, Barrister, and subsequently D. Horovitz)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, and D. Scannell, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 303, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in so far as it concerns Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd, Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China;

               2.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those of Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd and of the Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace);

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-97/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzetti v EUIPO — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Figurative EU trade mark ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma — Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO — Request for proof of genuine use — Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzetti v EUIPO — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)
   (Case T-97/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Figurative EU trade mark ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma - Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 305/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ines di Lelio (Rome) (represented by: D. De Simone, G. Orsoni and R. Fecchio, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 656/2014-1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Ms di Lelio and Mr Mozzetti.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mario Mozzetti to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-508/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2013/34/EU — Obligations on some forms of undertakings in relation to financial statements — Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-508/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/34/EU - Obligations on some forms of undertakings in relation to financial statements - Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 279/06)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, Agent)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and M. Allik, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and A. Stolfot, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-121/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Pro-Braine ASBL and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château (Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an authorised landfill site, in the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment — Concept of ‘consent’ )

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Pro-Braine ASBL and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château
   (Case C-121/11) (1)

   (Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an authorised landfill site, in the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment - Concept of ‘consent’)
   2012/C 165/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pro-Braine ASBL, Michel Bernard, Charlotte de Lantsheere

      Defendant: The Commune of Braine-le-Château

      Intervener: Veolia es treatment SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) and of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an authorised landfill site, in the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment — Concept of ‘consent’ — Scope

      Operative part of the judgment

   The definitive decision relating to the carrying on of operations at an existing landfill site, taken on the basis of a conditioning plan, pursuant to Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, does not constitute a ‘consent’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, unless that decision authorises a change to or extension of that installation or site, through works or interventions involving alterations to its physical aspect, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment within the meaning of point 13 of Annex II to Directive 85/337, and thus constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-229/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Impala v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/33

         Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Impala v Commission
   (Case T-229/08)
   (2008/C 197/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, international association) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby, J. Golding, Solicitors, and I. Wekstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's Decision of 3 October 2007 in Case No COMP/M.3333-Sony/BMG declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July 2004, the Commission declared compatible with the common market the concentration by which Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America acquired joint control of the joint venture company Sony BMG combining their recorded music businesses (Case No. COMP/M.3333-Sony/BMG). By the judgment of 13 July 2006, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's decision (2). Following this annulment, the case was re-notified to the Commission who reassessed the concentration under the current market circumstances and by contested Decision C(2007) 4507 of 3 October 2007 authorised the merger as compatible with the common market and functioning of the EEA Agreement.
   The applicant who is an international association representing independent music companies — competitors to the parties to the merger seeks the annulment of that decision. It claims that in authorising the merger the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment, and/or misapplied the law on collective dominance and/or infringed Article 253 EC by:

               —

               failing to apply the correct test and to properly assess the existence, strengthening or creation of a collective dominant position in the physical recorded music market and market for recorded music in digital formats;

               —

               failing to conduct a prospective analysis as to whether or not the concentration might strengthen or create a collective dominant position on the market for physical recorded music and/or the market for recorded music in digital formats, and failing to give reasons or sufficient reasons for dispensing with a prospective analysis;

               —

               failing to conduct a proper analysis concerning the possible effects of the merger on consumer choice or cultural diversity, or to make a prospective analysis thereof; and

               —

               in conclusion, failing to find that the merger strengthened or created a collective dominant position in the physical recorded music market and market for recorded music in digital formats.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).

      (2)  Case T-464/04, Impala v. Commission, [2006] ECR II-2289, judgment on appeal, Case C-413/06 P, Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala.


title: Case T-492/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark star foods — Earlier Community figurative and word marks STAR SNACKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)
   (Case T-492/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark star foods - Earlier Community figurative and word marks STAR SNACKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 179/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Wessang (Zimmerbach, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Führer and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greinwald GmbH (Kempten, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4);

               2.

               orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of Nicolas Wessang’s costs;

               3.

               orders Wessang to bear two-thirds of his own costs;

               4.

               orders OHIM to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32 of 7.2.2009


title: Case C-229/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak
   (Case C-229/15)
   (2015/C 294/23)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Jan Mateusiak

      Question referred

   Must Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that, on expiry of the adjustment period referred to in Article 187 of the directive, a taxable person’s fixed assets upon the acquisition of which he deducted VAT, should not be subject to tax and included in the winding-up inventory at the time he ceases his activity, if the period laid down in law for adjusting the input tax on the acquisition thereof, which arises from the estimated period for using those assets in the taxable person’s economic activity, has passed, or as meaning that the fixed assets are subject to tax at the time the taxable person ceases his economic activity, regardless of the adjustment period?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Bruno Chauvin against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-16/97)

text:
8 . 3 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 74/27
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Bruno Chauvin                     only to newly recruited officials. In the applicant's view,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  such a restriction on the temporal effects of the revocation
                           ( Case T-16/97)                             of the decision previously in force gives rise to inequalities
                                                                       in the treatment of officials appointed under the old rules .
                             ( 97/C 74/54 )
                                                                       It is precisely with a view to avoiding such discrimination
                   (Language of the case: French)                      that he is seeking the re-examination of his classification
                                                                       in grade . Consequently, the applicant once again asserts
An action against the Commission of European                           that there has been an infringement of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Staff Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
1997 by Bruno Chauvin, residing in Brussels, represented               Secondly, the applicant alleges that the appointing
by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            authority failed to observe its duty to have regard for the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               welfare and interests of          officials, in that the defendant
Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                                             failed to take account of        the applicant's personal interests
                                                                       following delivery of              the aforesaid judgment in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Alexopoulou and the              adoption of the decision of
                                                                       7 February 1996 . He points out in that regard that the
— annul the Commission's decision of 16 June 1996                      Commission has for a number of years taken the view that
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    judgments of the Community judicature establishing
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31           principles of general application in respect of classification
      ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                  in grade are to be applied retroactively.
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   The applicant considers, in any event, that the contested
     adopted by the Commission implicitly rejecting the                decision is vitiated by the absence of any statement of
      applicant's complaint,                                           reasons and by a manifest error of assessment.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                       o [ 19951 ECR-SC 11-683 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a grade A 7 official in Directorate
General VI (Agriculture ) whose appointment and
classification in that grade took place prior to 5 October
1995 , on which date the Court of First Instance                                  Removal from the register of T-78/95 (*)
delivered its judgment in Case T- 17/95 Alexopoulou v.                                              ( 97/C 74/55 )
Commission O , contests the refusal of the appointing
authority to re-examine, in the light of the principle                                 (Language of the case: English)
emanating from that judgment, the conditions in which
that classification was effected .                                     By order of 9 December 1996 the President of the Second
                                                                       Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
In support of his claims, he maintains, first of all, that             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
there has been an infringement of Article 31 (2 ) of the               removal from the register of Case T-78/95 : NMB France
Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the general decision of                 Sari and Others v. Commission of the European
7 February 1996 , by which the Commission sought to                    Communities .
introduce into its administrative practice the grading
criteria arising from the aforesaid judgment, is applicable            ( ] ) OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 .


title: Case T-114/12: Action brought on 8 March 2012 — Bode Chemie v OHIM — Laros (sterilina)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Action brought on 8 March 2012 — Bode Chemie v OHIM — Laros (sterilina)
   (Case T-114/12)
   2012/C 165/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bode Chemie GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laros Srl (Cremona, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2012 in Case R 2423/2010-4; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party before the Board of Appeal.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of the word elements ‘sterilina’, in the colours white and red for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark applied for No 8120032.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘STERILLIUM’ No 221168 for goods in Class 5; Figurative Community mark in the colours blue and white ‘BODE Sterillium’ No 6262257 for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2007/2009, in that contrary to the opinion of the Board of Appeal, a global assessment of the relevant criteria in respect of the identity and/or similarity between the goods, of the similarity between the signs and the distinctive character of the opposing mark leads to a determination of a likelihood of confusion for the public.


title: Case C-527/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 10 October 2011 — SIA Ablessio v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 10 October 2011 — SIA Ablessio v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-527/11)
   2012/C 6/09
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Ablessio

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as prohibiting refusal of the individual registration number that identifies a taxable person, on the basis that the holder of the taxable person’s shares previously obtained on various occasions the individual number for other undertakings, which did not carry out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred by the holder to other persons immediately after obtaining the individual number?

               2.

               Is Article 214 of that Directive to be interpreted, in relation to Article 273 thereof, as permitting the tax authority, before assigning the individual number, to verify the capacity of the taxable person to carry out the activity that is subject to tax, where this verification is intended to ensure correct collection of the tax and prevent tax evasion?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case F-69/08: Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Knöll v Europol

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/56

         Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Knöll v Europol
   (Case F-69/08)
   (2008/C 285/101)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim, Germany) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the decision of 4 October 2007, by which Europol informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 4 October 2007, by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 which is part of the extension of that of 4 October 2007;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-61/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)) — Landkreis Bad Dürkheim v Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Common rules for direct support schemes — Concept of eligible hectare — Non-agricultural activities — Conditions for allocation of an agricultural area to a holding)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)) — Landkreis Bad Dürkheim v Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion
   (Case C-61/09) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Common rules for direct support schemes - Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ - Non-agricultural activities - Conditions for allocation of an agricultural area to a holding)
   2010/C 346/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landkreis Bad Dürkheim

      Defendant: Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Interpretation of Article 44(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Interpretation of the terms ‘agricultural area’ and ‘non-agricultural activity’ with regard to a situation in which the objective of environmental protection takes precedence over the objective of agricultural production — Conditions for allocation of an agricultural area to a holding

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 44(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 of 19 December 2006, must be interpreted as not precluding an area from being eligible for aid where, while it is admittedly also used for agricultural purposes, the overriding objective is landscape management and nature conservation. In addition, the fact that the farmer is subject to the instructions of the nature conservation authority does not deprive an activity which meets the definition referred to in Article 2(c) of that regulation of its agricultural character.

               2.

               Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it is not necessary, for an agricultural area to be considered as allocated to the farmer’s holding, that it be at his disposal against payment on the basis of a lease or another similar type of contract to let;

                           —

                           the allocation of an agricultural area to a holding is not precluded by the fact that the area is placed at the farmer’s disposal free of charge, the farmer being obliged only to take over the contributions to a trade association, for a specific use and for a limited period of time in accordance with the objectives of nature conservation, on condition that the farmer is able to use that area with a degree of autonomy sufficient for his agricultural activities for a period of at least 10 months; and that

                           —

                           it is without prejudice to the allocation of the area in question to the farmer’s holding that the farmer is obliged to carry out certain tasks for a third party in return for payment, provided that the area is also used by the farmer for his own agricultural activities in his name and on his own behalf.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case T-377/05: Action brought on  5 October 2005  — Seegmuller v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/22

         Action brought on 5 October 2005 — Seegmuller v Commission
   (Case T-377/05)
   (2006/C 10/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Magali Seegmuller (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: K.H. Hagenaar, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the Decision of 5 July 2005 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission which prevents the applicant from making her posting effective and from taking up her post in the Guinea Conakry delegation as head of administration of that delegation;

               —

               grant in principle the applicant's claim for compensation, to be quantified at a later date, which arises from the material and non-material harm caused to her by the defendant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a member of temporary staff at the Commission, applied for the post of head of administration in Congo Brazzaville (Vacancy notice COM/2004/2982/F). On 5 January 2005, she was informed that she had passed the selection board. Asked by Commission DG RELEX whether she would accept another delegation, the applicant also agreed to be posted to Guinea Conakry.
   As is the practice, the applicant underwent a medical examination with a view to her departure for the delegation in Guinea Conakry. By note of 17 March 2005, the Commission's medical officer stated that the applicant did not have the required physical aptitudes to carry out her functions in that delegation. Following that note, DG RELEX informed the applicant that she could not take up the post in Guinea Conakry. The applicant therefore submitted a complaint against that decision, which was rejected by the contested decision of 5 July 2005.
   In support of her action, the applicant claims that it was not within the competence of the Director of DG RELEX to make the decision of 15 April 2005 and that there was a misuse of powers. Furthermore, she submits that there were alleged errors of assessment on the part of the Commission's medical officer, whose report of 17 March 2005 fails to establish, she alleges, any comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusions which he draws from them.


title: Case F-145/15: Action brought on 26 November 2015 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/44

         Action brought on 26 November 2015 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-145/15)
   (2016/C 111/54)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2014 and a claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision concerning the marks received by the applicant for 2014, including the decision concerning the increase in remuneration, the payment of a bonus and the promotion relating to those marks, and the staff report for 2014 based thereon, including both the part concerning the applicant’s performance in 2014 and the part concerning the objectives set for him for 2015;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 150 000 together with interest, as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-376/12: Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

      Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
      (Case T-376/12)
      (2012/C 331/51)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, E. Leftheriotou and S. Papaioannou)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the action;

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3838 of 22 June 2012 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2012) 3838 and published at OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83 (2012/336/EU), in so far as it concerns financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the dried grape sector and in the area of unlawful plantation of vineyards;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs;

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the Commission implementing decision of 22 June 2012 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2012) 3838 and published at OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83 (2012/336/EU), in so far as it concerns financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the dried grape sector for the marketing year 2006/07 and in the wine sector — plantation of vines without the right to replant.
      As regards the correction in the dried grape sector, the applicant contends, first, that the corrections imposed at a rate of 100 % for sultanas and at a rate of 25 % for currants, relating to the reduction in minimum yield, the specialisation of the vineyard plots, actual yields and deliveries, are based on an incorrect assessment of the facts and on a misinterpretation and misapplication of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1621/1999. (1)

      Second, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful and should be annulled because the imposition by the Commission of a flat-rate correction of 100 % for sultanas and 25 % for currants, relating to deficiencies as regards the reduction in minimum yield, the failure to observe the requirement for specialisation of vineyard plots and actual yields and deliveries, is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Annex 2 to document VI/5530/97, Annex 17 to document AGRI/17933/2000 and document AGRI/60637/2006, lacks an adequate statement of reasons, is disproportionate to the deficiencies found and goes beyond the discretion available to the Commission.
      As regards plantation without the right to replant, the applicant contends, first, that the imposition of a financial correction by the Commission is unlawful and should be annulled because (a) it concerns the rejection of expenditure that was effected more than 24 months before the communication of the results of the Commission’s investigation, in breach of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 (2) and now Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, (3) and (b) it infringes the principle of legal certainty and weakens the rights of defence and of support of the applicant’s submissions because it goes back to events and acts of past decades.
      Third, the applicant submits that the Commission’s view that the areas which were regularised under Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation No 1493/1999 (4) have been regularised in a manner not compatible with that provision, because the fact that the vineyard register was not completed at the time when the applications for regularisation were drawn up meant that the necessary guarantees for the checking of deviations were not provided, is based on an error as to the facts.
      Fourth, the applicant contends that the contested decision is unlawful and should be annulled because the correction imposed and the method applied for calculating it, with the application mutatis mutandis of Article 86 of Regulation No 479/2008, (5) is contrary to Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the guidelines in document VI/5330/87, and the method’s application leads to results that are disproportionate to the deficiencies found.
      Fifth, the applicant submits that the Commission’s determination that the total area regularised pursuant to Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation No 1493/1999 was 7 112,04 hectares and that the average value of the planting rights was EUR 1 500/hectare is based on an error as to the facts, lacks an adequate statement of reasons and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

         (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

         (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine.

         (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999.


title: Case C-464/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt (Austria) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H and Others

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt (Austria) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H and Others
   (Case C-464/15)
   (2015/C 398/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

      Defendants: Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H, Robert Schnitzer, Suayip Polat KG, Ülkü Polat, Attila Juhas, Milazim Rexha

      Question referred

   Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in an assessment of the proportionality of a rule of national law which provides for a monopoly in the market for games of chance, the validity of that rule under EU law depends not only on the objective which it pursues but also on its effects, as definitively and empirically determined?


title: Case C-371/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014  — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014 — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-371/14)
   2014/C 372/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 (1) of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not (OJ 2013 L 82 of 22.3.2013, pp. 10-17; ‘Regulation No 260/2013’) invalid because the anti-dumping duty introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, and which was to be extended, was no longer in force at the time when Regulation No 260/2013 was adopted?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

               2.

               Is Regulation No 260/2013 invalid because there is no evidence of circumvention, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation No [1225/2009], of the measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (2)?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 82, p. 10.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 of 10 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China and consigned from or originating in Taiwan and on imports of certain refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China and consigned from or originating in Taiwan (OJ 2007 L 326, p. 1).


title: Case C-184/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2015 — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2015 — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud
   (Case C-184/15)
   (2015/C 236/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Florentina Martínez Andrés

      Respondent: Servicio Vasco de Salud

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (1) on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in a situation of abuse arising from the use of fixed-term employment contracts, does not acknowledge that staff regulated under administrative law who are engaged on an occasional basis (personal estatutario temporal eventual) (‘occasional regulated staff’), as opposed to staff who are in precisely the same position but who are employed by a public authority under contract, have a general right to remain in post on an indefinite but not permanent basis, in other words, to hold the temporary post until it is filled in the manner prescribed by law or eliminated in accordance with legally established procedures?

               2.

               If the previous question is answered in the negative, must the principle of equivalence be interpreted as meaning that the national court may regard the situation of staff who are employed by a public authority under a fixed-term contract and that of occasional regulated staff as similar in cases where there has been misuse of fixed-term employment contracts, or, when assessing similarity, must the national court consider factors other than the fact that the employer is the same, the services provided are the same or similar and the contract of employment has a fixed term, such as the precise nature of the employee’s relationship, whether contractual or regulated, or the power of the public authorities to organise the way they function, which justify treating the two situations differently?

      (1)  Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-231/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-231/15)
   (2015/C 294/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku

      Respondent: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

      Question referred

   Must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that — in the event that a network provider contests a decision of the national regulatory authority setting call termination rates in the network of that undertaking (MTR decision), and that undertaking then contests a subsequent decision of the national regulatory authority amending a contract between the addressee of the MTR decision and another undertaking so that the rates paid by that other undertaking for call termination in the network of the addressee of the MTR decision correspond to the rates set in the MTR decision (implementing decision) — the national court, having found that the MTR decision has been annulled, cannot annul the implementing decision in view of the fourth sentence of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21 and the interests which the undertaking benefitting from the implementing decision derives from the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations or of legal certainty, or must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the national court may annul the implementing decision of the national regulatory authority and consequently remove the obligations laid down therein for the period preceding the judgment if it finds that that is necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking appealing against the national regulatory authority’s decision that enforces the obligations laid down in the MTR decision which was subsequently annulled?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.


title: Case T-258/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Orange v Commission (State Aid — Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Altmark judgment — Service of general economic interest — Market failure — Overcompensation)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Orange v Commission
   (Case T-258/10) (1)

   (State Aid - Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Altmark judgment - Service of general economic interest - Market failure - Overcompensation)
   2013/C 336/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented: initially by M van der Woude and D. Gillet, and subsequently by D. Gillet and H. Viaene, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents); the Hauts-de-Seine department (France) (represented by: J.-D. Bloch and G. O’Mahony, lawyers); and Sequalum SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: L. Feldman, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 concerning the compensation for public service costs for the establishment and operation of a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department (State Aid N 331/2008 — France).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Hauts-de-Seine department, Sequalum SAS and the French Republic to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-519/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-113/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v European Commission

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/21

      Appeal brought on 18 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-113/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v European Commission
      (Case C-519/14 P)
      (2015/C 016/31)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder, V. Schoene, lawyers)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the order under appeal and annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1122/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)] (1);

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs necessary for the proceedings and the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         First ground of appeal: The General Court considers that the appellant has no legal interest in bringing proceedings since the contested regulation contains the information that ‘Gouda’ is generic. The statement at issue in the registration regulation is, thereby, merely tautological. In contrast to the General Court’s conclusion, the annulment of the registration regulation would as a result grant the members an advantage establishing the legal interest in bringing proceedings. For that reason, the action is admissible. For the same reason, it is also well-founded. The information is accepted by the Dutch claimants. The Commission therefore acted unlawfully by failing nevertheless to provide that information.

         Second ground of appeal: The appellant claimed that its members had in the past delivered milk in the Netherlands, which then could be processed to make Gouda or Edam and it is probable that it was so processed. The General Court did not infer therefrom an interest in bringing proceedings. That argument is factually inaccurate. The General Court thereby misconstrued the facts, since the argument is correct. Moreover, according to the General Court, the appellant did not bring its complaint and action for ‘milk producers’. That is also a distortion of the facts, since the complaint was brought for the appellant’s members, insofar as they process milk (the milk sold to the Netherlands is processed milk) and market milk or cheese.

         Third ground of appeal: The General Court considers that the rejection of the complaint does not provide the appellant with an interest in bringing proceedings. Under the law, the complaint was not brought by the appellant, but by the Federal Republic of Germany. That does not correspond to the law applicable under Regulation No 510/2006 (2), and that question has, in contrast to the General Court’s finding, not yet been decided by that court for the purpose that regulation. There are differences between Regulation No 510/2006 and the regulation it replaced, Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 (3), which the General Court failed to take into consideration and which had the consequence that, in any event, claimants such as the appellant have a right to appeal.

         Fourth ground of appeal: The Court rejects the appellant’s claim that the EU’s protected geographical indications (PGI) grant the Dutch manufacturers a competitive advantage as against the appellant’s members. That is incorrect. There exists a competitive advantage, on the basis of which the appellant’s members have an interest in bringing an action for annulment of the registration regulation.

         (1)  OJ 2010 L 317, p. 22.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

         (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).


title: Case C-76/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Paul Vervloet and Others v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in favour of ARCO Group financial cooperatives — Deposit guarantee schemes — Directive 94/19/EC — Scope — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members, being natural persons, of cooperatives operating in the financial sector — Not included — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Commission decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Paul Vervloet and Others v Ministerraad
   (Case C-76/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in favour of ARCO Group financial cooperatives - Deposit guarantee schemes - Directive 94/19/EC - Scope - Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members, being natural persons, of cooperatives operating in the financial sector - Not included - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Commission decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market))
   (2017/C 053/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paul Vervloet, Marc De Wit, Edgard Timperman, Godelieve Van Braekel, Patrick Beckx, Marc De Schryver, Guy Deneire, Steve Van Hoof, Organisme voor de financiering van pensioenen Ogeo Fund, Gemeente Schaarbeek, Frédéric Ensch Famenne

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Intervening parties: Arcofin CVBA, Arcopar CVBA, Arcoplus CVBA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2005/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to adopt a scheme to guarantee shares in recognised cooperatives operating in the financial sector, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and as not precluding Member States from adopting such a scheme, in so far as that scheme does not undermine the practical effectiveness of the deposit-guarantee scheme that that directive requires Member States to establish, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court, and provided that it complies with the FEU Treaty, in particular with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU;

               2.

               The examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Grondwettelijk Hof (Constitutional Court, Belgium) has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives;

               3.

               Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a guarantee scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as the latter was put into effect in infringement of the obligations arising from that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-263/00: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Navale v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/19

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Navale v Commission
   (Case T-263/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 71/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: La Navale Soc. coop. rl (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (initially represented by: U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, assisted by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               3.

               La Navale Soc. coop. rl shall bear the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs;

               4.

               The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-43/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Elementis and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Markets for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Withdrawal of the decision — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

         Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Elementis and Others v Commission
   (Case T-43/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Withdrawal of the decision - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 6/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Elementis plc (London, United Kingdom); Elementis Holdings Ltd (London); Elementis UK Ltd (London); and Elementis Services Ltd (London) (represented by: T. Wessely, A. de Brousse, lawyers, A. Woods, Solicitor, and E. Spinelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers), in so far as it concerns the applicants, as well as, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the fines imposed on the applicants under that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-160/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Karin Mau v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Council Directive 80/987/EEC — National legislation fixing the final date for the guarantee period as that of the decision to open the procedure for the collective settlement of claims where the employment relationship still exists at that date — Article 141 EC — Indirect discrimination against female employees on child raising leave — Liability of a Member State in the event of infringement of Community law)

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 158/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 15 May 2003
                                                                                of 15 May 2003
in Case C-160/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Karin Mau v Bundesanstalt für
                               Arbeit (1)                                             in Case C-193/01 P: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (1)
(Council Directive 80/987/EEC — National legislation fix-
                                                                             (Appeal — Decision 93/731/EC — Access to Council
ing the final date for the guarantee period as that of the
                                                                             documents — Decision 1999/284/EC — Access to docu-
decision to open the procedure for the collective settlement of
                                                                             mentation and archives of the European Central Bank —
claims where the employment relationship still exists at that
                                                                             ‘Basle/Nyborg’ Agreement on the reinforcement of the
date — Article 141 EC — Indirect discrimination against
                                                                             European Monetary System — Refusal of access — Appli-
female employees on child raising leave — Liability of a
                                                                              cation out of time against that decision — Excusable error)
Member State in the event of infringement of Community
                                  law)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/07)
                           (2003/C 158/06)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-160/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-193/01 P, Athanasios Pitsiorlas, residing at Thessa-
Karin Mau and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpretation                loniki (Greece), represented by D. Papafilippou, lawyer: Appeal
of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                       against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the                      European Communities (First Chamber) of 14 February 2001
Member States relating to the protection of employees in the                 in Case T-3/00 Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB [2001] ECR II-
event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283,                    717, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
p. 23) and of Article 141 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),                     to the proceedings being: Council of the European Union
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                          (Agents: M. Bauer and D. Zachariou) and European Central
C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                   Bank, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano,
on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                       Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, Regis-
                                                                             trar, has given a judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
1.    Articles 3(2) and 4(2) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of
      20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the                1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
      Member States relating to the protection of employees in the                 European Communities of 14 February 2001 in Case T-3/00
      event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as             Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB;
      precluding a provision of national law, such as Para-
      graph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III (German Social Code,
      Part III), which defines the date of the onset of the employer’s       2.    Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council of the
      insolvency as the date of the decision ruling on the request for             European Union before the Court of First Instance;
      opening of the insolvency procedure and not the date on which
      that request was lodged.                                               3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment
                                                                                on Mr Pitsiorlas’ application for annulment of the decision of
2.    The expression ‘employment relationship’ within the meaning                  the Council of 30 July 1999 and the decision of the European
      of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987, must be interpreted                 Central Bank of 8 November 1999 refusing him access to a
      as excluding periods which, by their very nature, cannot give                document;
      rise to outstanding salary claims. A period during which the
      employment relationship is suspended on account of child               4.    Reserves the costs.
      raising leave and, for that reason, confers no right to remuner-
      ation, is therefore excluded.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.


title: Case C-517/08 P: Order of the Court of 15 April 2010 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA, Aragonesas Agro, SA v European Commission, Bayer CropScience AG, European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Directive 91/414/EEC — Non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to that directive — Withdrawal of marketing authorisations — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/17

         Order of the Court of 15 April 2010 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA, Aragonesas Agro, SA v European Commission, Bayer CropScience AG, European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-517/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 91/414/EEC - Non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to that directive - Withdrawal of marketing authorisations - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 234/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA, Aragonesas Agro, SA (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Bayer CropScience AG, European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) (represented by: L. Parpala and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents, C. Mereu, avocat, K. Van Maldegem, avocat, D. Waelbroeck, avocat and N. Rampal, avocate), Kingdom of Spain

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2008 in Case T-75/06 Bayer CropScience AG and Others v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 864 of 2 December 2005 concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that active substance [notified under No C(2005) 4611] (OJ 2005 L 317, p. 25)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA and Aragonesas Agro SA are ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.