title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2002 in Case T-51/01: Joachim Fronia v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission's administrative structures — Reappointment of a former Head of Unit as an ad personam adviser)

text:
C 156/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         29.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 23 April 2002                                                          of 16 April 2002
in Case T-372/00: Mario Campolargo v Commission of                       in Case T-51/01: Joachim Fronia v Commission of the
                 the European Communities (1)                                              European Communities (1)
(Officials — Recruitment procedures — Application of                     (Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission’s adminis-
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Recruitment of a                trative structures — Reappointment of a former Head of
  temporary agent — Withdrawal of an administrative act)                                 Unit as an ad personam adviser)
                         (2002/C 156/41)                                                          (2002/C 156/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-372/00: Mario Campolargo, temporary agent at                   In Case T-51/01: Joachim Fronia, an official of the Commission
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  of the European Communities, residing in Overijse, Belgium,
Kraainem (Belgium), represented by C. Mourato, avocat, with              represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of              address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and D. Wael-                European Communities (Agent: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) —
broeck) — application for annulment of the decision of the               application for annulment of the decisions whereunder, on the
Commission of 15 February 2000 annulling the appointment                 reorganisation of the Commission’s administrative structures,
of the applicant to the post of Head of Unit XIII.G.2 —                  the applicant was not kept on as acting head of Unit, but was
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                 instead appointed as an ad personam adviser — the Court of
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;             First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 April 2002, in                 Ramos, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
which it:                                                                J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 16 April 2002, in which it:
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 15 February 2000
      annulling the appointment of Mr Campolargo to the post of          1.    Dismisses the application;
      Head of Unit XIII.G.2.
                                                                         2.    Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.


title: Case C-317/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) v Commission (Appeal — Set-off of claims governed by separate legal orders — Application for repayment of sums advanced — Principle of litis denuntiatio — Rights of the defence and right to a fair hearing)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) v Commission
   (Case C-317/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Set-off of claims governed by separate legal orders - Application for repayment of sums advanced - Principle of litis denuntiatio - Rights of the defence and right to a fair hearing)
   2011/C 13/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and S. Delaude, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2009 in Joined Cases T-396/05 and T-397/05 ArchiMEDES v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant at first instance seeking, first, annulment of the Commission's decisions to recover certain sums paid under a contract with the applicant and set-off of their reciprocal claims and, second, an order for the Commission to pay the remainder of the balance due under that contract — Non-applicability of the principle of litis denuntiatio — Rejection of the claim that the co-contractors are jointly and severally liable — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 07.11.09.


title: Case F-25/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 February 2013 — Presset v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Daily subsistence allowance — Condition for granting)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 February 2013 — Presset v Commission
   (Case F-25/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Daily subsistence allowance - Condition for granting)
   2013/C 79/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul-Henri Presset (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Pradal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision refusing the applicant entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Presset to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.12, p. 36.


title: Case T-321/12: Action brought on 20 July 2012 — Ciudad de la Luz and Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/32

         Action brought on 20 July 2012 — Ciudad de la Luz and Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana v Commission
   (Case T-321/12)
   2012/C 287/61
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ciudad de la Luz, SA (Alicante, Spain) and Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SA (Alicante) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García and J. Belenguer Mula, lawyers, and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in their application;

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C(2012) 3025 final of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA. 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008) granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’ (‘CDL’) and, in particular, Article 1(1) thereof in so far as it declares that the investment in CDL comprises elements of incompatible State aid, requiring its recovery;

               —

               declare that the contested decision is non-existent or, alternatively, void, in particular Article 1(1) thereof in so far as it declares that certain producers which have filmed at CDL have received incompatible aid;

               —

               consequently, annul the orders for recovery ordered by Article 2 of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Error of law in concluding that there was State aid in favour of CDL (misapplication of the private investor principle). Infringement of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 345 TFEU
               The applicants submit that the Commission incorrectly analyses the private investor principle and is mistaken in its conclusion concerning the existence of State aid. The Generalitat Valenciana’s investments in CDL occurred on two separate occasions — in 2000 and 2004 — and both investment decisions were adopted after the respective business plans, which established that the project was expected to be profitable, had been produced. In applying the private investor principle in this case, the Commission compares that project with the profitability of projects and operators which are not comparable due to their size, thereby emptying that principle of its content in breach of Articles 107(1) and 345 TFEU.
               Similarly, the Commission refuses to take into account in its legal and economic analysis the existence, in addition to the film studio project, of the project to develop a commercial, leisure and hotel area on neighbouring land of the Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana (‘SPTCV’). If both projects are taken into account, the profitability of the investment in CDL is even greater.

               2.

               Error of law in the analysis of the compatibility of the CDL project and failure to state reasons
               The applicants submit that the Commission refuses to take into consideration that because CDL is located in Alicante, the project was eligible for regional aid. Since that project is a large investment project, the Spanish authorities take the view that CDL was entitled to apply for regional aid with an intensity of approximately 36 %, which has not be contested by the Commission. Notwithstanding this, the Commission refuses to concede that when the private investor principle is applied to 64 % of the investment, the project is even more profitable.
               In the alternative, the applicants submit that the investment by the Valencian authorities in the CDL film studio complex should be declared compatible, either in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 107(3)(d) TFEU.
               The Commission does not give reasons for its conclusions that the aid for the construction of the CDL film studios is not necessary, proportionate and adequate, and, in its view, such aid cannot benefit — even in part — from the cultural compatibility exemption.

               3.

               Error of law due to the absence of a decision and, in any event, a total absence of reasoning in relation to the incentives to film productions
               In addition to finding that the investment in CDL constitutes incompatible aid, the Commission categorises any incentive awarded to film producers on condition that filming takes place at CDL as incompatible.
               The contested decision devotes only a single paragraph to such alleged aid in which it simply declares that the latter is incompatible. The decision fails to (i) detail the measure at issue referred to, (ii) mention the information supplied to that effect by the Member State, (iii) examine whether or not the elements of aid are present, (iv) analyse the compatibility criteria, and (v) consider whether legitimate expectations arise.
               The applicants submit, therefore, that the contested decision is non-existent or void on the ground of the failure to state reasons. In addition, since those incentives satisfied the conditions laid down in the 2001 Commission communication on aid to cinema, they ought to have been found compatible with Article 107(3)(d) TFEU.


title: Case T-202/01: Action brought on 30 August 2001 by Free Trade Foods NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 303/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.10.2001
The applicant claims that the Commission, when exercising its                   continue with a view to determining the quantum of the
discretion, did not take account of the fact that another firm                  damage, and order the Community in any event to pay
obtains or strengthens a dominant position in specific areas of                 the damages provisionally quantified and yet to be
glass manufacture if the applicant disappears from the market.                  quantified, alternatively order the Community to pay
That is a manifest error of appraisal and therefore an infringe-                such compensation as the Court may deem fair and
ment of Article 87(3)(c) EC. Moreover, the Commission took                      equitable, together with interest thereon from the date of
a restructuring plan as a basis which it knew to be no longer                   the application until payment in full;
current.
                                                                          (3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Finally, the applicant complains of infringement of the appli-
cant’s right to a fair hearing, of its rights of defence, of the
principle of good administration, of the duty to state reasons
(Article 253 EC) and of Article 20(1) of Regulation                       Pleas in law and main arguments
No 659/1999 (1).
                                                                          The applicant has a sugar refinery in Curaçao which is used
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying           for processing C sugar from the European Community. That
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC       sugar obtains OCT origin under the EC/OCT cumulation of
    Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).                                               origin rule, and can be imported into the Community duty-
                                                                          free.
                                                                          By Regulation 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 (1) (the Fifth
                                                                          Safeguard Measure), amended by Commission Regulation
                                                                          1476/2001 of 18 July 2001 (2), a quota of 4 848 tonnes was
                                                                          fixed for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001.
Action brought on 30 August 2001 by Free Trade Foods
NV against the Commission of the European Communities                     The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
                                                                          support of its claims:
                           (Case T-202/01)
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 109 of the OCT decision;
                          (2001/C 303/41)
                                                                          —     infringement of the order of preference established by the
                                                                                EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods;
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                                guards concluded within the framework of the WTO, and
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       of Article 33(7) EC;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2001 by Free Trade                      —     illegality of Regulation 2553/97, the provisions of which
Foods NV, established in Curaçao (Dutch West Indies), rep-                      have been declared applicable by the contested regulation.
resented by M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
                                                                              providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
                                                                              with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
(1) annul Regulation 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 introdu-                       originating status from the overseas countries and territories for
      cing safeguard measures for imports from the overseas                   the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177 of 30 June 2001,
      countries and territories of sugar sector products with                 p. 57).
      EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
                                                                              amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
                                                                              measures with regard to imports from the overseas countries
(2) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered                 and territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
      by the applicant as a result of the Fifth Safeguard Measure,            originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
      and that the parties should seek to reach agreement on                  L 195 of 19 July 2001, p. 29).
      the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant, and
      order that, if no such agreement is reached within a time-
      limit to be specified by the Court, the proceedings are to


title: Case C-125/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2014  — Iron & Smith Kft. v Unilever NV

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2014 — Iron & Smith Kft. v Unilever NV
   (Case C-125/14)
   2014/C 175/28
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iron & Smith Kft.

      Other party to the proceedings: Unilever NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it sufficient, for the purposes of proving that a Community trade mark has a reputation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (‘the Directive’), (1) for that mark to have a reputation in one Member State, including where the national trade mark application which has been opposed on the basis of such a reputation has been lodged in a country other than that Member State?

               2.

               May the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the genuine use of a Community trade mark be applied in the context of the territorial criteria used when examining the reputation of such a mark?

               3.

               If the proprietor of an earlier Community trade mark has proved that that mark has a reputation in countries other than the Member State in which the national trade mark application has been lodged — which cover a substantial part of the territory of the European Union — may he also be required, notwithstanding that fact, to adduce conclusive proof in relation to that Member State?

               4.

               If the answer to the previous question is no, bearing in mind the specific features of the internal market, may a mark used intensively in a substantial part of the European Union be unknown to the relevant national consumer and therefore the other condition for the ground precluding registration in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Directive not be met, since there is no likelihood of detriment to, or unfair advantage being taken of, a mark’s repute or distinctive character? If so, what facts must the Community trade mark proprietor prove in order for that second condition to be met?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case T-585/11: Action brought on 10 November 2011 — Cheverny Investments v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/60

      Action brought on 10 November 2011 — Cheverny Investments v Commission
      (Case T-585/11)
      (2012/C 25/115)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Cheverny Investments (St Julians, Republic of Malta) (represented by: H. Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision K(2011)275 of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 relating to the fiscal carry-forward of losses (‘Sanierungsklausel’), addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany;

                  —

                  alternatively, annul Commission Decision K(2011)275 of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany inasmuch as on interpretation of national law the carry-forward of losses under Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (Körperschaftssteuergesetz, ‘KStG’) does not apply only to companies which are over-indebted or insolvent or are likely to become insolvent, but a carry-forward of losses within the meaning of Paragraph 8c(1a) leads, in so far as the further conditions are met, to a retention of the carry-forward of losses in the event of a change of share owner also for companies whose insolvency or over-indebtedness is avoidable, thus merely imminent;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the applicant’s necessary costs under Article 87(2)(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant claims that the Commission made an error of assessment by incorrectly finding in its analysis of Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG that the carry-forward of losses constituted State aid, in that it

                  —

                  assumed that the provision which it objected to concerns only companies which are insolvent or likely to become insolvent, but not also those for which insolvency or over-indebtedness are merely imminent;

                  —

                  assumed selectivity on the basis that the reference system used is Paragraph 8c of the KStG and not the Law on corporation tax.

            In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission made errors of assessment in the contested decision, in that

                  —

                  the Commission did not determine the reference system in the light of the KStG and taking account of its own Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (OJ 1998 L 384, p.3) and its proposal for a Council Directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB);

                  —

                  did not find that the carry-forward of losses was justified by the disruption to the general economic equilibrium of 2009.

            In the applicant’s opinion, in the light of the foregoing, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU.


title: Case C-523/08: Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/20

         Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-523/08)
   (2009/C 19/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Condou-Durande and M.-A. Rabanal Suárez, Agents,)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC (1) on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research and, in any case, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for the transposition into domestic law of Directive 2005/71/EC expired on 12 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15.


title: Case C-459/08: Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-459/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/60

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 313, 12.2.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2000 in Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay v European Investment Bank (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Actions by members of staff — Measure capable of being contested — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 233/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12.8.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 16 June 2000                                                             of 22 May 2000
                                                                            in Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay v European Invest-
  in Case T-84/98: C v Council of the European Union (1)                                                ment Bank (1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Invalidity Committee                    (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Actions by members of
— Retirement — Breach of essential procedural require-                      staff — Measure capable of being contested — Manifest
     ments — Misuse of powers — Non-material damage)                                                   inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/52)
                          (2000/C 233/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay, a former member of the
In Case T-84/98: C, former official of the Council of the                   staff of the European Investment Bank, residing at Waldbredi-
European Union, residing in Dublin (Ireland), represented by                mus (Luxembourg), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels
Séamus O Tuathail, Barrister of the Bar of Ireland, with an                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg c/o Michael O’Toole, Irish                Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v European
Embassy, 28 Route d’Arlon v Council of the European Union,                  Investment Bank (Agent: L. La Marca) — application for
represented by Colin Robertson and Thérèse Blanchet, Legal                  annulment of the decision taken by the European Investment
Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Bank, in the form of a letter from its President dated
Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli, General                    18 February 1999 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Counsel of the Legal Affairs Directorate in the European                    of: V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi,
Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer — applica-                   Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 May 2000, the
tion first, for annulment of Council Decision No 677/97 of                  operative part of which is as follows:
11 July 1997 retiring the applicant on grounds of total
permanent invalidity and for an order requiring the Council to              1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
pay compensation for the material and non-material damage
suffered — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vester-               2.    The parties are to bear their own costs;
dorf, President, M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                            3.    The Kingdom of the Netherlands is to bear its own costs.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls Council Decision No 677/97 of 11 July 1997 by                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      which it retired the applicant on its own initiative on grounds
      of total permanent invalidity;
2.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant the difference between
      the salary which she received before her retirement and that
      granted to her on the basis of the contested decision, and any
      other amount which the applicant received before her retirement,            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      together with interest at an annual rate of 5,5 %;
                                                                                of 22 May 2000
3.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant the sum of
      BEF 2 000 000 as compensation for the non-material damage             in Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali
      caused to her, together with interest at an annual rate of 5,5 %      Venete v European Ombudsman and European Parli-
      until the date of payment;                                                                           ament (1)
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                (Actions for failure to act — Ombudsman — Inadmissibili-
                                                                                ty)
5.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                                            (2000/C 233/53)
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali Venete,
                                                                            established in Padua (Italy), represented by I. Cacciavillani, of
                                                                            the Venice Bar, and A. Cimino, of the Padua Bar, with an


title: Removal from the register of Case C-113/95

text:
30 . 12. 95           HENI                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 351 / 11
        specific area related payment on a farmer whose area            from the register of Case C-98/95 : Commission of the
        actually determined is found to be less than that               European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
        declared in the aid application when the difference
        more than 20 % but when no false intention or serious           (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
        negligence has been found ?
(') OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 156 , 7 . 7. 1995 , p . 27 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C- 113/95 ( )
                                                                                95/C 351 /21 )
         Removal from the register of Case C-14/95 ( )                  By order of 4 October 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 / 19                              from the register of Case C- 113/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                         (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
C-14/95 : Commission of the European Communities v.
Kingdom of Belgium .
(') O J No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-125/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /22 )
                                                                        By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of
         Removal from the register of Case C-98/95 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 /20 )                             from the register of Case C-125/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
By order of 22 September 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                should not be taken into consideration, and of the
                        of 19 October 1995                              defendant's decision of 22 March 1993 rejecting that
     in Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst v. Commission of the
                                                                        application and, second, for compensation for the material
                                                                        and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                    European Communities (')                            — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Act adversely                      of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
affecting an official — Article 45 of the StaffRegulations —            Saggio, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Notice of vacancy — Misuse of powers — Statement of                     19 October 1995 , in which it:
              reasons — Compensation for damage)
                            ( 95/C 351 /23 )                            1 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for breach of
                 (Language of the case: German)                             duty;
In Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst, an official of the                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Everberg ( Belgium ), represented initially by Heinz-Jorg
Moritz and subsequently by Lothar Mahlberg,                             3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    one quarter of the costs of the applicant, who is ordered
care of Marianne Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel , v.                   to bear three quarters of his own costs.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
Griesmar and Bertrand Wagenbaur ) — application, first, for             (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
the annulment of notice No 45/93 of the Advisory
Committee on Appointments of 18 February 1993 ,
inasmuch as it indicates that the application of the applicant


title: Case T-107/13 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2013 by Cornelia Trentea against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012 in Case F-112/10 Trentea v FRA

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2013 by Cornelia Trentea against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012 in Case F-112/10 Trentea v FRA
   (Case T-107/13 P)
   2013/C 129/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Cornelia Trentea (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment of 11 December 2012 in case F-112/10;

               —

               Consequently, annul the decision of the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment of 5 June 2010 rejecting the appellant’s candidature for post (ref. TA-ADMIN-AST 4-2009) and the decision appointing another candidate; order the FRA to compensate the appellant’s material prejudice corresponding to the difference between her current salary and the AST 4 salary, until retirement age, including all allocations and indemnities and compensation of pension rights; and order the FRA to compensate the appellant’s moral prejudice evaluated ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euro; and

               —

               Order the FRA to pay the costs in the first instance and appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the rules concerning the admissibility of the pleas: admissibility of the submissions put forward at the hearing at first instance regarding the absence from the Selection Committee of a Staff Committee representative — violation by the first judges of the duty to state reasons. The appellant considers that the CST, first, infringed the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST by failing to take account of the fact that the submissions at issue were based on documents and information which the FRA produced only in the course of the proceedings before the CST and, second, failed to recognise that the submissions at issue must be held to be admissible on the ground that they were closely connected with other pleas submitted in the written procedure. Third, and in any event, the CST erroneously concluded, without any motivation, that the plea was not among the pleas which the Tribunal may raise of its own motion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a factual inaccuracy regarding the written tests leading to a violation by the CST of the principle of equal treatment and a distortion of evidence. The appellant considers that the Tribunal made a mistake when it held that it had not been established or even alleged that the questions asked in the written test were identical for all the candidates, since the defendant confirmed it in his statement of defence. This inaccuracy affected the Tribunal’s conclusion in law as the principle of equal treatment requires written tests to take place at the same time for all candidates, and not on different days as it was the case in the appellant’s selection procedure. Moreover, the judges at first instance rejected the appellant’s plea regarding the lack of anonymity of the written test, based on a mere allegation by FRA which she had contested.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the irregular composition of the selection committee, distortion of evidence and violation by the CST of its duty to state reasons. The appellant considers that the Tribunal erred in law and distorted the evidence when it considered, without any further motivation, that the Head of the Administration department of the FRA and the Financial Manager of the FRA had in depth knowledge and experience in the area of procurement, based on mere allegations of FRA contested by the appellant. This lack of expertise also affected the results of the selection.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons, unreasonable time to issue the judgment. The appellant considers that the judges at first instance erred in law when deciding the defendant had satisfied its obligation to state reasons since the appellant did not know, until the procedure at first instance, which criteria had been used for the assessment of her candidature, was not informed of which qualifications she did not fulfil and did not receive a breakdown of the global marks received until the hearing. The Tribunal also illegally relied on a document submitted by the defendant at the hearing to reach the conclusion that the defendant had satisfied its obligation to state reasons, without justifying of any exceptional circumstances. Moreover, firstly, if the appellant had received this document during the administration phase as she requested, she would have been able to better understand the reasons for her non-selection and challenge this decision more effectively. Secondly, the length of the procedure before the CST would have been more reasonable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 87(2) and 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST regarding the costs, violation of the duty to state reasons. The appellant considers that the Tribunal illegally ordered the appellant to bear her own costs and those of the defendant.


title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-24/97)

text:
 No C 74/ 16              EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 3 . 97
 2. Is it contrary, with respect in particular to a farmer                      a uniform and binding manner by the member banks
       who lives for most of the year in another Member                         — are, taken as a whole, compatible with Article 85
       State of the EU together with his or her spouse who is                   of the Treaty, in relation to the individual clauses
       the other owner of the said farm and works as                            discussed in the grounds of this order, in that they are
       a diplomatic representative of the Finnish State, to                     liable adversely to affect trade between the Member
       the prohibition of discrimination, the principle of                      States and have as their object and effect the
       proportionality or other principles to be observed in                    prevention, restriction or distortion of competition
       Community law to exclude him or her from the                             within the common market;
       compensation in question ?
                                                                           4 . what effects any finding of incompatibility in
 (') OJ No L 218 , 6 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                       accordance with question 3 may have on the
 (2 ) OJ No L 128 , 19 . 5 . 1975 , p. 1 .                                      corresponding clauses of the 'all-embracing' guarantee
                                                                                agreements and on the agreements themselves
                                                                                concluded 'downstream' by individual banks, since, as
                                                                                a group, the banks belonging to the ABI may be
                                                                                regarded, within the meaning and for the purposes of
                                                                                Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          position in the national credit market, whose specific
Genova — Sezione Sesta Civile by order of that court of                         application of the rules in question is regarded as an
 18 December 1996 in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and                           abuse .
        Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA
                             ( Case C-23/97 )
                               ( 97/C 74/32 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Action brought on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Geno                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
va — Sezione Sesta Civile ( Genoa District Court, Sixth                                                 of Germany
Civil Chamber ) of 18 December 1996, which was received                                              ( Case C-24/97)
at the Court Registry on 17 January 1997, for a                                                        ( 97/C 74/33 )
preliminary ruling in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and
Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA on the
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
following questions :
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of
1 . whether the Norma Bancarie Uniforme (Uniform Bank                     the European Communities, represented by Peter
      Rules ) laid down by the ABI ( Associazione Bancaria                Hillenkamp and Peter Jan Kuijper, of its Legal Service,
      Italiana ) for its members in relation to contracts for             acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      the opening of current account credit facilities — since            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
      they are laid down and applied in a uniform and                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
      binding manner by the banks belonging to the ABI —                  Luxembourg.
      are compatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, where
      they make the credit facility subject to conditions for             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      determination      of      an  interest rate  which    is  not
      previously determined and is not determinable by the                — declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
      customer, and they are liable adversely to affect trade                  failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 , 52 and
      between the Member States and have as their object                       59 of the EC Treaty and under Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council
      and effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of                  Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the
      competition within the common market;                                    abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                               within the Community for workers of Member States
2 . what effects any finding of incompatibility in                             and their families (') and under Article 4 ( 1 ) of
      accordance with question 1 may have on the                               Council Directive 73/ 148/EEC on the abolition of
      corresponding clauses of the contracts for the opening                   restrictions on movement and residence within the
      of a current account credit facility, concluded                          Community for nationals of Member States with
      'downstream' by member banks with individual                             regard to establishment and the provision of
      customers, since, as a group, the banks belonging to                     services ( 2 ) in so far as under paragraph 12 a ( 2 ) and
      the ABI may be regarded, within the meaning and for                      ( 3 ) of the AufenthG/EWG ( Law on residence of EC
      the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a                   Community nationals ) non-German Community
      joint dominant position in the national credit market,                   nationals in the Federal Republic of Germany are
      whose specific application of the rules in question (in                  treated, as regards the degree of fault and scale of
      connection with determination of the interest payable                    fines, disproportionately differently from German
      on the loan ) is regarded as an abuse;                                   nationals who commit a comparable infringement of
                                                                               the obligation to prove their identity ( paragraph 5 ( 1 )
3 . whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its                               and (2 ) of the PersonalausweisG ( Law on identity
      members in relation to the 'all-embracing' guarantee                     cards ) in conjunction with paragraph 17 ( 1 ) of the
      covering the credit facility — since they are applied in                 OWiG ( Law on administrative offences )),
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97               EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 74/ 17
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the                             under Community law, a time-limit which starts to run
       costs of the proceedings.                                                before the correct and complete transposition into
                                                                                national law of the Directive conferring that right
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                             compatible with Community law ?
Infringement of the obligations under Articles 48 , 52 and                 2. Is it compatible with Community law to provide a
59 of the EC Treaty and under Article 4 of Council                              party whose rights are recognized as having been
Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 4 of Council Directive                         infringed, and to whom repayment of the sums
73/148/EEC : the starting point is the freedom of                               claimed is granted, with a remedial procedure under
movement of persons enshrined in Community law and                              which the rules as to quantum differ from, and
the principle of 'national treatment'. Infringements by                         compare unfavourably with, those laid down in
German nationals of paragraph 5 ( 1 ) No 1 and 2 of the                         respect of actions for repayment between private
PersonalausweisG are comparable to infringements by                             individuals, and are substantially determined by a
non-German Community nationals of paragraph 12a ( 1 )                           measure enacted by the same State as that which
No 2 of the AufenthG/EWG. This comparableness is                                infringed the injured party's rights by failing to fulfil
substantiated not only by the fact that Article 9 ( 1 ) of                      its obligations ?
Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 7 of Directive 73/ 148/EEC
expressly refer to identity cards for nationals . Since the lack
of a valid identity card, passport or other papers listed in
paragraph 12a ( 2 ) of the AufenthG/EWG does not remove
the right of residence resulting from Community law, in each
case, both that of a non-German Community national and                     Action brought on 31 January 1997 by the European
that of a German national, the obligation to prove one's                      Parliament against the Council of the European Union
identity also concerns an, in principle, equivalent
administrative rule with — in the case of a non-German                                            ( Case C-42/97)
Community national — purely declaratory effect in regard to                                         ( 97/C 74/35 )
the Community-law residence permit.
Consequently, neither a different standard of fault nor a                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
different scale of fines is permissible .                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 31 January 1997 by the European
                                                                           Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Norbert
( : ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485 .                       Lorenz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 172 , 28 . 6 . 1973 , p. 14.
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Registry of the General Secretariat of
                                                                           the European Parliament, Tower Building.
                                                                           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                 — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the
di Genova by orders of that court of 19, 21 and 23                              Council 's decision of 21 November 1996 on the
November 1996 in the cases before it between 1 . Fiducia                       adoption of a multiannual programme to promote the
ria Internazionale Srl; 2 . Giolfo e C. Srl; 3 . Ligure Piemon                 linguistic diversity of the Community in the
tese Società d'Intermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4. So.Me.Fi.                      information society ( MLIS ),
Srl; 5 . Saia Srl; 6. Svin Servizi Spa and Amministrazione
                      delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                   ( Cases C-25/97 and C-30/97 )
                              ( 97/C 74/34 )                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     The aim of the contested act, and the principal and
European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di Ge                     definitive subject of its contents, is the promotion of
nova ( Genoa District Court) Sezione Prima Civile ( First                  linguistic diversity. The Community languages represent,
Civil Division ) of 19, 21 and 23 November 1996 , which                    in their diversity and richness, a cultural asset of the
were received at the Court Registry on 22 January 1997,                    greatest value . By means of the MLIS programme, the
for a preliminary ruling in the cases before it between 1 .                citizens of the Community will be able to improve their
Fiduciaria Internazionale Sri; 2. Giolfo e C. Sri; 3 . Ligure              knowledge of the cultures of the other Member States,
Piemontese Societa d'lntermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4 .                    which is an objective expressly envisaged by the first
So.Me.Fi . Sri; 5 . Saia Sri; 6 . Svin Servizi SpA and Ammini             indent of Article 128 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty. The contested
strazione delle Finanze dello Stato on the following                       act cannot therefore be adopted solely on the basis of
questions:                                                                 Article 130 of the Treaty, without also being based on
                                                                           Article 128 .
1 . Is national legislation which sets, in respect of the
       initiation of proceedings to safeguard a right arising


               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/1

         (2008/C 183/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

      OJ C 142, 7.6.2008

      OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

      OJ C 116, 9.5.2008

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

      OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-179/09: Action brought on 28 April 2009 — Dunamenti Erőmű v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/16

         Action brought on 28 April 2009 — Dunamenti Erőmű v Commission
   (Case T-179/09)
   2009/C 167/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. (Százhalombatta, Hungary), (represented by: J. Lever, QC, A. Nourry and R. Griffith, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision and each of the operative provisions of the dispositif in so far as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               alternatively, annul Articles 2 and 5 of the Decision in so far as they order recovery of aid from the applicant in excess of any aid which should have been found by the Commission to be incompatible with the common market;

               —

               order a measure of inquiry under Article 65 of the Rules of procedure requesting the Commission to provide to the Court copies of all written communications between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities and all records of meetings and discussions between them, such as are contemplated by paragraph 466 of the contested decision;

               —

               if the Court in its wisdom agrees that it could be assisted by an expert or experts, order a measure of inquiry commissioning a report or reports from same and any other measures of inquiry as the Court in its wisdom considers to be appropriate;

               —

               order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs herein.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 2223 final, of 4 June 2008, declaring incompatible with the common market the aid granted by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generating producers in the form of long-term power purchase agreements (‘PPA’) of electricity concluded between the transmission operator Magyar Villamos Müvek Rt. (‘MVM’), owned by the Hungarian State, and these producers at a date prior to accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union [State aid C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian ‘Stranded Costs’]. The applicant is identified in the contested decision as a beneficiary of the alleged State aid and the decision orders Hungary to recover the aid, including interest, from the applicant.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
   In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 87(1) EC in as much as it qualified the applicant’s PPA as aid measure even so the Commission recognised that it constituted an ‘essential’ pre-privatisation agreement. In applicant’s opinion, the Hungarian authorities were therefore acting in accordance with the market economy investor principle. The applicant contends that the Commission misapplied the Treaty of accession of Hungary and Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (1).
   Second, the applicant claims that even if, quod non, the PPA had granted State aid to the applicant in 1995, the applicant was entitled to rely on a legitimate expectation that, under Community law, such aid would be treated as existing aid.
   Third, the applicant argues that by qualifying the applicant’s PPA as incompatible State aid the decision infringes the principle of proportionality as the aid was wrongly classified as operating aid and should not have been held to be incompatible even in so far as it compensated the applicant for its stranded costs. Further, the applicant submits that this conclusion is vitiated by inadequate and/or defective reasoning and infringes Article 87(3)(a) EC by failing to recognize any role for applicant’s PPA in promoting the economic development.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the recovery order infringes Article 14(1) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 and general principles of Community law such as principle of legitimate interests and legitimate expectations. Furthermore, the applicant states that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements, such as its procedural rights to a fair hearing.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1


title: Case T-347/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/68

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
   (Case T-347/08) (1)

   (2009/C 44/117)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-76/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/40

         Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT
   (Case T-76/15)
   (2015/C 146/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: KENUP Foundation (Kalkara, Malta), Candena GmbH (Lüneburg, Germany), Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (CO BIK) (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner and H. Weiß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and

               —

               order the EIT to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions rejecting the KENUP proposal were not taken by the competent EU body.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to follow the applicable selection procedure when adopting the contested decisions.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to state reasons by not notifying the designation decision to the applicants.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external expert violates the principle of equal treatment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the principles of transparency and the obligation to state reasons.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the Horizon 2020 Participation Regulation’s provisions on ethical review.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts contains manifest errors in the assessment of the proposal.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that experts of the EIT’s and members of the EIT Governing Board involved in the selection procedure leading to the Contested Decision were in a position that brought their interests into conflict with those of the European Union.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the EIT 2014 Call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) violates the rules of procedure governing the KICs selection procedure.


title: Case C-272/06: Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel d'Angers — France) — EARL Mainelvo v. Denkavit France SARL

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel d'Angers — France) — EARL Mainelvo v. Denkavit France SARL
   (Case C-272/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/41)

      Language of the case: France

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

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-450/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/16

         Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE
   (Case T-450/17)
   (2017/C 357/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl (Milano, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and the subsequent decisions which assessed the bid of another tenderer as successful and which awarded the contract to that tenderer;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant with interest of 8 % or, in the alternative, compensation with interest of 8 %;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of transparency, the principle to act with a certain care and the duty to respect confidentiality, and further alleging manifest error of appraisal.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the evaluation decisions and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the assessment of the applicant’s tender.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration.


title: Case C-479/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Laserdisken ApS v Kulturministeriet (Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Article 4 — Distribution rights — Rule of exhaustion — Legal basis — International agreements — Competition policy — Principle of proportionality — Freedom of expression — Principle of equal treatment — Articles 151 EC and 153 EC)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Laserdisken ApS v Kulturministeriet
   (Case C-479/04) (1)

   (Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 4 - Distribution rights - Rule of exhaustion - Legal basis - International agreements - Competition policy - Principle of proportionality - Freedom of expression - Principle of equal treatment - Articles 151 EC and 153 EC)
   (2006/C 281/15)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret (Denmark)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laserdisken ApS

      Defendant: Kulturministeriet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Validity and interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Exhaustion of the rightholder's rights only as of the first sale or first other transfer of ownership in the Community by the rightholder or with his consent — Imports from third countries of DVDs of cinematographic works.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Consideration of the first question does not reveal any information such as to affect the validity of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

               2.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 is to be interpreted as precluding national rules providing for exhaustion of the distribution right in respect of the original or copies of a work placed on the market outside the European Community by the rightholder or with his consent.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case C-339/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/74/EC — Articles 3 and 5(2) — Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems — Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/12

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-339/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/74/EC - Articles 3 and 5(2) - Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems - Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive))
   2014/C 253/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, F Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By having failed to ensure, from 1 January 2012, that laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-341/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen by order of that court of 15 September 2005 in Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen by order of that court of 15 September 2005 in Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet
   (Case C-341/05)
   (2005/C 281/18)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Arbetsdomstolen of 15 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Laval un Partneri Ltd and Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality and with the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services for trade unions to attempt, by means of industrial action in the form of a blockade, to force a foreign temporary provider of services in the host country to sign a collective agreement in respect of terms and conditions of employment such as that set out in the above-mentioned decision of the Arbetsdomstolen, if the situation in the host country is such that the legislation intended to implement Directive 96/71 has no express provisions concerning the application of terms and conditions of employment in collective agreements?

               2.

               The Swedish Medbestämmandelagen (Law on workers' participation in decisions) prohibits industrial action taken with the intention of circumventing a collective agreement concluded by other parties. That prohibition applies, however, pursuant to a special provision contained in part of the law known as the ‘lex Britannia’, only where a trade union takes measures in respect of industrial relations to which the Medbestämmandelagen is directly applicable, which means in practice that the prohibition is not applicable to industrial action against a foreign undertaking which is temporarily active in Sweden and which brings its own workforce. Do the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality and the provisions of Directive 96/71 constitute an obstacle to an application of the latter rule — which, together with other parts of the lex Britannia also mean in practice that Swedish collective agreements become applicable and take precedence over foreign collective agreements already concluded — to industrial action in the form of a blockade taken by Swedish trade unions against a foreign temporary provider of services in Sweden?


title: Case T-644/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2014  — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission (Interim proceedings — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/45

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission
   (Case T-644/13 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case))
   2014/C 175/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Serco Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); SA Bull NV (Brussels); and Unisys Belgium SA (Brussels) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 30 October 2013 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicants in the public tendering procedure DIGIT/R2/PO/2012/026 — ITIC-SM (IT service management for the integrated and consolidated IT desktop environment of the European Commission) (OJ 2012/S 69 — 112095) and awarding the contract to another consortium, secondly, an order that the Commission refrain from concluding the framework contract at issue and from concluding specific contracts under that framework contract and, thirdly, the grant of any other appropriate interim measures.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-466/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Sala de lo Social, by decision of that court of 1 October 2004 in the case of Manuel Acereda Herrera v Servicio Cántabro de Salud

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Sala de lo Social, by decision of that court of 1 October 2004 in the case of Manuel Acereda Herrera v Servicio Cántabro de Salud
   (Case C-466/04)
   (2005/C 19/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria (High Court of Justice, Cantabria), Sala de lo Social (Social Court), received at the Court Registry on 3 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Manuel Acereda Herrera against the Servicio Cántabro de Salud on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, in the version arising from the consolidated text approved by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (1), be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation, granted by the competent institution, to go to the territory of another Member State to receive there the appropriate medical treatment also confers on the individual concerned the right to be reimbursed, by the institution which granted the authorisation, for the costs of travel to, and stay and/or subsistence on, the territory of the Member State in question?

               2.

               In the event that the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: is there a provision or rule of Community law in accordance with which the costs to be refunded, and their amount, must be set?

               3.

               In the event that the reply to the first question is in the negative: is it compatible with the division of powers between the Member States and the institutions of the Community laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular with Article 10 EC (formerly Article 5 of the EC Treaty), and with the legal status of Community regulations laid down in Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), for a Member State to implement the provisions of a Community regulation by domestic law, adopting additional provisions which supplement those of the regulation and by means of which it introduces different rules for different cases which, under the regulation, are governed by the same rules, thereby impeding the exercise by individuals of certain options and rights available to them under the Community provision? Specifically, is it compatible with the Treaty establishing the European Community, and with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, for the Kingdom of Spain to maintain provisions of domestic law which confer on individuals registered with the social security scheme benefit rights additional to those referred to in Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 but which differentiate between the cases referred to in that regulation, with the result that the additional benefits concerned may be provided only in the case of Article 22(1)(c), notwithstanding that there appears to be no objective, proportionate and reasonable justification for such differentiation?

               4.

               In any event:

                           (a)

                           Is a rule of national law of the kind contained in Article 5.3 of Royal Decree 63/1995, which, by repealing Article 18.3 of Royal Decree 2766/1967, abolishes the right of individuals entitled to benefits under the Spanish public social security scheme to obtain reimbursement of the costs of medical treatment provided by medical establishments and practitioners established on Spanish territory where the treatment to which they are entitled is not provided to them under the public scheme within a reasonable period, taking account of their condition and the probable course of the disease, notwithstanding that the body which administers the social security scheme is required to authorise the individuals concerned to receive treatment in such cases from medical establishments and practitioners established on the territory of a Member State other than Spain, compatible with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 12 EC?

                           (b)

                           Is a rule of national law of the kind contained in Article 5.3 of Royal Decree 63/1995, which, by repealing Article 18.3 of Royal Decree 2766/1967, abolishes the right of individuals entitled to benefits under the Spanish public social security scheme to obtain reimbursement of the costs of medical treatment provided by medical establishments and practitioners established on Spanish territory where the treatment to which they are entitled is not provided to them under the public scheme within a reasonable period, taking account of their condition and the probable course of the disease, notwithstanding that the body which administers the social security scheme is required to authorise the individuals concerned to receive treatment in such cases from medical establishments and practitioners established on the territory of a Member State other than Spain, compatible with the principle of freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 49 EC et seq.?

                           (c)

                           Is a rule of national law of the kind contained in Article 5.3 of Royal Decree 63/1995, which, by repealing Article 18.3 of Royal Decree 2766/1967, abolishes the right of individuals entitled to benefits under the Spanish public social security scheme to obtain reimbursement of the costs of medical treatment provided by medical establishments and practitioners established on Spanish territory where the treatment to which they are entitled is not provided to them under the public scheme within a reasonable period, taking account of their condition and the probable course of the disease, notwithstanding that the body which administers the social security scheme is required to authorise the individuals concerned to receive treatment in such cases from medical establishments and practitioners established on the territory of a Member State other than Spain, compatible with the rules on competition in Articles 81, 82 and 87 EC?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).


title: Case T-155/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Kaddour v Council

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/23

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Kaddour v Council
   (Case T-155/15)
   (2015/C 190/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the production of the file in Case T-654/11;

               —

               Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

               —

               Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant:

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.


title: Case C-518/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 22 December 1999 in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya Chekili

text:
C 63/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.3.2000
therefore constitute a special non-contributory benefit within          The French Government maintains that, by merely citing the
the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result        conclusions of the SSC without even examining the need for
that where a person — as in the plaintiff’s case — meets the            fresh measures, and by confusing ‘the assessment of the risk’
conditions for that allowance after 1 June 1992, only the               with ‘the management of the risk’, the Commission has failed
coordination rules created by Article 10(a) of the Regulation           to observe the precautionary principle. It claims that the
are applicable?                                                         Commission has not analysed the scientific opinions relating
                                                                        to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), even the minority
                                                                        opinions, fuelling the uncertainty regarding the existence or
(1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.                                         extent of risk to human health (in particular, the opinion of
(2) OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6.                                        the Agence française pour la sécurité sanitaire des aliments
(3) OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992, p. 1.                                        (French Food Safety Agency) and the experts’ document on
                                                                        transmissible subacute spongiform encephalopathies (TSSE)
                                                                        annexed thereto); that the Commission has failed to take the
                                                                        protection measures needing to be implemented before the
                                                                        reality and gravity of those risks become fully apparent; and
                                                                        that, by refusing to modify and, indeed, to cancel its decision
                                                                        lifting the ban on British beef from 1 August 1999, the
                                                                        Commission has infringed the precautionary principle as
                                                                        established by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court. The
                                                                        Commission’s decision is thus vitiated by an infringement of
Action brought on 29 December 1999 by the French
                                                                        the Treaties, by procedural irregularities and by the absence of
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                        a statement of reasons.
                             munities
                        (Case C-514/99)                                 (1) OJ L 195 of 28.7.1999: Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of
                                                                             23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the United
                                                                             Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export scheme
                         (2000/C 63/33)                                      may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision
                                                                             98/256/EC (OJ 1998 L 113, p. 33).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 December 1999 by the French Republic,
represented by Ronny Abraham, Director of Legal Affairs in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Régine Loosli-Surrans, respectively Head of Subdirectorate and
Chargée de Mission in that Ministry, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy,                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                                 de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 22 December
                                                                        1999 in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya Chekili
The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-518/99)
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing to modify or
      cancel Decision 1999/514/EC (1).                                                             (2000/C 63/34)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de
                                                                        Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 22 December 1999,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for a
The action has been brought against a decision of the                   preliminary ruling in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya
Commission which was revealed by a statement made on                    Chekili on the following question:
29 October 1999 by Mr Commissioner Byrne, in which he
expressed the view that, following the issue on the same day
of the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC),              Does an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land
there was no longer any need to ‘re-examine the decision to             and consequential damages amount to proceedings ‘which
lift the ban on exports of British beef’, and in particular by the      have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’
decision dated 17 November 1999 by which the college of                 within the meaning of Article 16 of the Convention of
Commissioners gave formal notice to France requiring it to              27 September 1968 between the Member States of the
comply with Decision 1999/514/EC and to lift its ban.                   European Economic Community on jurisdiction and the
The action is principally based on an allegation that the               enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
Commission has infringed the precautionary principle and,               signed in Brussels on 27 September 1968?
secondarily, on a claim that the procedure followed was
inadequate and that the insufficient reasons have been given
for the contested decision.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 January 2004 in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02: Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   28 January 2004
   in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02: Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Form of drinks packaging - Stand-up pouch - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Need to preserve a sign's availability)
   (2004/C 94/112)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02, Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, established in Eppelheim (Germany), represented by A. Franke, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), (Agent: G. Schneider): Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 (Cases R 719/1999 2 to R 724/1999 2, R 747/1999 2 and R 748/1999 2) concerning the registration of three-dimensional trade marks (stand-up pouches), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.07.2002.


title: Case T-712/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark REHABILITATE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)
   (Case T-712/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark REHABILITATE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 046/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Case R 609/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REHABILITATE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.