title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 1999 in Case C-416/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 93/119/EC, 94/42/EC, 94/16/EC and 93/118/EC - Non-transposition within the prescribed time-limits)

text:
27.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/3
to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions          declaration that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate,
necessary to comply fully and properly with Council                  within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment               comply with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the         18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing
environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40), the Portuguese              certain dangerous substances (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38),
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third        the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 12             under that article Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of that directive Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed              of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C.
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C.                Mointinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)               D. A. O. Edward, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;
and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; R.             L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January                 judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:
1999, in which it:
1. Declares that, by adopting a transitional provision by            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the
     virtue of which national legislation transposing                     prescribed period, all the measures necessary to
     Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the                  comply with Article 6 of Council Directive
     assessment of the effects of certain public and private              91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
     projects on the environment, adopted after 3 July                    accumulators containing certain dangerous substances,
     1988, the deadline for transposition, is not applicable              the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     to projects in respect of which the consent procedure                obligations under that article.
     had been initiated before the entry into force of the
     national law transposing that directive but after 3 July
     1988, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive.                               2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        (Fourth Chamber)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                     of 21 January 1999
                     of 21 January 1999                              in    Case    C-416/97: Commission of the            European
in    Case   C-347/97: Commission of the European                                  Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                     (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð               Directives 93/119/EC, 94/42/EC, 94/16/EC and
Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators                   93/118/EC Ð Non-transposition within the prescribed
containing certain dangerous substances Ð Failure by a                                         time-limits)
Member State to adopt programmes provided for in
                  Article 6 of the Directive)                                                (1999/C 86/06)
                        (1999/C 86/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-347/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of                   In Case C-416/97: Commission of the European
Belgium (Agent: Annie Snoecx) Ð application for a                    Communities (Agent: Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) v.
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.3.1999
Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
M. Braguglia)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 January 1999
Ð     application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
     within the prescribed time-limits, the laws, regulations       in Case C-181/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply              the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Georg Wilkens v. Land-
     with                                                                         wirtschaftskammer Hannover (1)
                                                                    (Additional milk levy Ð Special reference quantity Ð
Ð Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on                Non-marketing       and      conversion      undertaking     Ð
     the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or          Obligations Ð Failure to fulfil Ð Withdrawal of the
     killing (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21)                          conversion premium Ð Retroactive annulment of a quota
                                                                                allocation)
Ð Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July 1994 amending                                       (1999/C 86/07)
     Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting
     intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine
     (OJ L 201, 4.8.1994, p. 26)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
Ð Commission Directive 94/16/EC of 22 April 1994
     amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on undesirable              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     substances and products in animal nutrition (OJ L 104,                  published in the European Court Reports)
     23.4.1994, p. 32), and
                                                                    In Case C-181/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December 1993                   of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht for a
     amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     health inspections and controls of fresh meat and              court between Georg Wilkens and Landwirtschaftskammer
     poultry meat (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15)                     Hannover, third party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundes-
                                                                    verwaltungsgericht Ð on the interpretation and validity of
                                                                    the second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Council
or in any event by failing to notify such provisions to the         Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
obligations under those directives Ð the Court (Fourth              Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the           milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as
Chamber, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (OJ
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,           L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35), Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
gave a judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it declared            composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the
that:                                                               Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. LeÂger,
                                                                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January
1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limits,
                                                                    1999, in which it has ruled:
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
     necessary to comply with
                                                                    The second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Council
     Ð Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July 1994                   Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
          amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health                   general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
          problems affecting intra-Community trade in               Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
          bovine animals and swine, and                             milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation
                                                                    (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, is to be interpreted
     Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                   as meaning that a producer who has had entitlement to
          1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the                  the non-marketing or conversion premium granted under
          financing of health inspections and controls of           Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977
          fresh meat and poultry meat,                              introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing
                                                                    of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy
                                                                    herds withdrawn as a result of an alleged failure to
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations      comply with his undertaking not to market milk or milk
     under those directives.                                        products is to receive a special reference quantity in due
                                                                    proportion to his compliance with and performance of
                                                                    that undertaking.
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: Case C-26/08: Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/13

         Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-26/08)
   (2008/C 92/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1);

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national law expired on 28 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.


title: Case C-101/17 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/10

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

   (Case C-101/17 P)
   (2017/C 195/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Verus Eood (represented by: C. Pfitzer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Maquet

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment in Case T-82/14 in its entirety;
               in the alternative: set aside the judgment in Case T-82/14 and, on the basis of a distortion of the facts in that judgment, refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings in all instances.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward the following grounds in support of its appeal:

               (1)

               infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, (1) in particular Article 52 thereof

               (2)

               infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, in particular Article 75 thereof

               (3)

               infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, in particular Article 76 thereof

               (4)

               infringement of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘trade mark applications made in bad faith’

               (5)

               infringement of the ‘fundamental rights catalogue’ of the Court of Justice of the European Union

               (6)

               infringement of international law, namely the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

               (7)

               infringement of international law, namely the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights)

               (8)

               infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

               (9)

               infringement of Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

               (10)

               infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

               (11)

               infringement of Article 17 of the ‘1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

               (12)

               infringement of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its additional protocols, in particular Article 1 of Protocol No 1

               (13)

               infringement of Article 6 ECHR — Right to a fair trial, in particular relating to distorted or false findings of fact, imputations, false accusations, denigrations, libel, slander

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


title: Case T-258/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of  20 September 2005  — Makro Cash & Carry Nederland v Commission (State aid — Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid — Service stations — Risk of cumulation of aid — Aid covered by the notice — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2005 — Makro Cash & Carry Nederland v Commission
   (Case T-258/99) (1)

   (State aid - Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid - Service stations - Risk of cumulation of aid - Aid covered by the notice - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)
   (2005/C 330/55)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Makro Cash & Carry Nederland BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: I. Cath, K. Tattersall and R. Blaauboer, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially G. Rozet and H. Speyart, Agents, assisted by J.C.M. van der Beek and L. Hancher, lawyers, and subsequently G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 5.2.2000.


title: Case T-274/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/38

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission
   (Case T-274/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/49)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-33/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/51

         Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA
   (Case T-33/17)
   (2017/C 104/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Amicus Therapeutics UK Ltd (Gerrards Cross, United Kingdom) and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Cranbury, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision, communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 14 December 2016, to release Clinical Study Report AT1001-011 under Regulation 1049/2001/EC;

               —

               in the alternative, remit the decision to the defendant in order to reconsider it, following an opportunity for the applicants to make specific submissions on particular parts of the clinical study report that should be redacted prior to release; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the clinical study report in question attracts a general presumption of confidentiality for the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in light of: (i) the scheme and terms of the relevant EU sectoral legislation; (ii) the obligation on EU institutions to give effect to obligations under Article 39(3) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement; and (iii) the importance to be attached to the applicants’ fundamental rights to privacy and to property.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the only legally permissible outcome of a proper balancing exercise, under Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, would have been a decision not to release the clinical study report in question, in light of: (i) the compelling weight of the applicants’ private interest in avoiding disclosure, given the destructive effect such disclosure would have upon fundamental property and business rights; and (ii) the merely vague and generic public interest in disclosure, there being no sufficiently pressing public need for disclosure.


title: Case T-234/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Siberian Vodka v EUIPO — Friedr. Schwarze (DIAMOND ICE)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/38

         Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Siberian Vodka v EUIPO — Friedr. Schwarze (DIAMOND ICE)
   (Case T-234/17)
   (2017/C 195/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Siberian Vodka AG (Herisau, Switzerland) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Friedr. Schwarze GmbH & Co. KG (Oelde, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘DIAMOND ICE’ — International registration No 1 211 695

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 in Case R 1171/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 February 2017 in the appeal proceedings R 1171/2016-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-511/16: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic
   (Case C-511/16) (1)

   (2017/C 161/25)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-397/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 August 2014 — Polkomtel Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 August 2014 — Polkomtel Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-397/14)
   (2014/C 431/14)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Polkomtel Sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Intervening party: Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (now Orange Polska S.A.), whose seat is in Warsaw

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (1) in its initial version, be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to ensure that not only end-users from other Member States, but also end-users from the Member State of a particular public communications network operator, have access to non-geographic numbers, with the result that the national regulatory authority’s assessment of whether that obligation has been fulfilled is subject to the requirements arising from the principle of effectiveness of EU law and the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, read in conjunction with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fulfil the obligation referred to in the first of those provisions, it is possible to use the procedure laid down for national regulatory authorities in Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive)? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/19 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that the end-users of a national public communications network operator have access to services using non-geographic numbers supplied on the network of another national operator, the national regulatory authority may lay down rules governing the payment of operators for call origination by having recourse to the call termination rates set in respect of one of those operators which are cost orientated pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, where the operator proposed that such a rate be applied during failed negotiations held to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2002/19?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.


title: Case T-29/09: Action brought on 20 January 2009 — Easycamp v OHIM — Oase Outdoors (EASYCAMP)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/50

         Action brought on 20 January 2009 — Easycamp v OHIM — Oase Outdoors (EASYCAMP)
   (Case T-29/09)
   (2009/C 69/109)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Easycamp BV (Amersfoort, The Netherlands) (represented by: C. Beijer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oase Outdoors ApS (Give, Denmark)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2008 in joined cases R 853/2007-1 and R 916/2007-1;

               —

               Allow the applicant to continue to use the Community trade mark — application No 3 188 943 for services in class 43; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘EASYCAMP’, for services in classes 39, 41 and 43

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Danish trade mark registration No 199 903 355 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; German trade mark registration No 39 910 614 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; Benelux trade mark registration No 944 316 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 191 370 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; The unregistered sign ‘easy camp’ used in Denmark and the United Kingdom.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially allowed the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeals

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-49/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/28

         Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission
   (Case T-49/08 P)
   (2008/C 107/47)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-67/05 in so far as it does not rule upon financial compensation for the non-material harm which he suffered as a result of acts and omissions of the administrative authority;

               —

               determine the financial compensation for the non-material harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;

               —

               make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling upon his application for annulment of his career development report for 2003 and of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   More specifically, the appellant contends that the Civil Service Tribunal wrongly refused to grant financial compensation for the non-material harm which he suffered as a result of his being assigned to the Directorate-General for Agriculture (DG AGRI) after the Directorate-General for Financial Control, within which he fell, was abolished. In the appellant's submission, the Civil Service Tribunal applied Community law incorrectly as a result of misappraisal of the evidence and contradictory reasoning.
   The appellant also submits that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in refusing to rule upon a particular claim or otherwise that its judgment displays inadequate reasoning and therefore infringes fundamental procedural rights enjoyed by the appellant and breaches Community law.


title: Case F-9/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission (Staff case — Open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 in the field of fraud prevention — Act adversely affecting the applicants — Exclusion of candidates following results obtained in admission tests — EPSO not competent)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission
   (Case F-9/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 in the field of fraud prevention - Act adversely affecting the applicants - Exclusion of candidates following results obtained in admission tests - EPSO not competent)
   2011/C 13/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vicente Carbajosa and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision adopting and publishing the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 and the decisions relating to the correction of the pre-selection tests and the written tests and the awarding of marks for the oral tests.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to admit Ms Vicente Carbajosa in respect of the competition EPSO/AD/117/08 and Ms Lehtinen and Ms Menchén in respect of the competition EPSO/AD/116/08 onto the list of candidates invited to submit a full application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action as being inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 04.04.2009, p. 37.


title: Case C-226/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision of the Member State concerned to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the Commission — Interests and points of view which must be taken into account)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-226/08) (1)

   (Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision of the Member State concerned to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the Commission - Interests and points of view which must be taken into account)
   2010/C 63/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stadt Papenburg

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Interpretation of Article 2(3), the first subparagraph of Article 4(2), and Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Economic interests of a municipality, linked to the operation of a river port and protected by the Constitution, which may suffer lasting effects as a result of the possible designation of the site concerned as a site of Community importance — Interests and points of view which must be taken into consideration by the Member State concerned when deciding to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance established by the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to refuse to agree on grounds other than environmental protection to the inclusion of one or more sites in the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the European Commission;

               2.

               Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, must be interpreted as meaning that ongoing maintenance works in respect of the navigable channels of estuaries, which are not connected with or necessary to the management of the site and which were already authorised under national law before the expiry of the time-limit for transposing Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, must, to the extent that they constitute a project and are likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned, undergo an assessment of their implications for that site pursuant to those provisions where they are continued after inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive.
               If, having regard in particular to the regularity or nature of those works or the conditions under which they are carried out, they can be regarded as constituting a single operation, in particular where they are designed to maintain the navigable channel at a certain depth by means of regular dredging necessary for that purpose, the maintenance works can be considered to be one and the same project for the purposes of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-364/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — Hungary v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 259 TFEU — Citizenship of the European Union — Article 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right to move within the territory of the Member States — President of Hungary — Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic — Diplomatic relations between Member States)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — Hungary v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-364/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 259 TFEU - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right to move within the territory of the Member States - President of Hungary - Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic - Diplomatic relations between Member States)
   2012/C 379/03
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E. Orgován, Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Maidani and S. Boelaert, Agents)

      Re:

   Article 259 TFEU — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 18(1) EC, Article 3(2) TEU, Article 21(1) TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Abusive application of European Union law — Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic imposed on the President of Hungary when intending to take up the invitation made by a social organisation — Prohibition on entry based, in part, on Directive 2004/38/EC — Application of the provisions of European Union law on the free movement of persons to Heads of State and to other persons representing the Member States

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-306/13: Action brought on 5 June 2013 — Silicium España Laboratorios/OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/22

         Action brought on 5 June 2013 — Silicium España Laboratorios/OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5)
   (Case T-306/13)
   (2013/C 226/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Silicium España Laboratorios, SL (Vila-Seca, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of March 7, 2013 (Case R 383/2012-1), to the extent it declares Community trade mark No 3384625, ‘LLRG5’, invalid on the grounds that it was applied for in bad faith;

               —

               Confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 December, 2011 in Case 4174 C;

               —

               Order the OHIM to bear its own costs and Silicium’s costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘LLRG5’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 384 625

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the invalidity of the contested CTM

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/49/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance)

text:
12.8.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 233/5
2.    As Community law presently stands, Directive 89/398/EEC               munities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — Application for the partial
      and the directives adopted pursuant to it do not prevent Member       annulment of Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April
      States from maintaining in force after the transposition of           1997 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
      Directive 89/398/EEC prior national legislative provisions            Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 on the
      such as those at issue in the main proceedings which apply to         Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      additives authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs intended        Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in so far as
      for particular nutritional uses, even if those provisions are         it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community financing
      based on a classification other than that used in Directive           for the sum of BEF 413 309 611 by way of expenditure
      89/398/EEC.                                                           incurred for the advance payment of export refunds — the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of R. Schintgen, President of
3.    In the absence of any provision in Directive 89/398/EEC itself,       the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
      or in the directives adopted pursuant to Article 4 of the             Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm, and
      Directive, as to the composition of foodstuffs intended for           V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,
      particular nutritional uses or the use of additives or substances     H. von Holstein, Deputy Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      for specific nutritional purposes in the manufacture of that type     given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:
      of product, no relevant Community rules exist, as Community
      law presently stands, on which individuals may rely in order to       1.    dismisses the application;
      challenge national rules on additives and substances for
      nutritional purposes authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs      2.    orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      of the kind at issue in the main proceedings.
4.    Member States are subject, in their monitoring of the composi-        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
      tion of foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and,
      in particular, of additives and substances for nutritional
      purposes used in their manufacture, to the requirements flowing
      from general principles recognised by Community law, and,
      in particular, the principle of the protection of legitimate
      expectations. However, in the main proceedings the relevant
      Community rules could not give rise to a legitimate expectation
      on the part of Arkopharma on which it could reasonably rely.
      It is for the national court to decide whether the rules on the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      free movement of goods within the Community have any
      application to an activity such as that at issue in the main                                    (Sixth Chamber)
      proceedings.
                                                                                of 18 May 2000
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                                                                            in Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      92/49/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (2000/C 233/10)
                            of 18 May 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Cereals, beef                                           in the European Court Reports)
                                and veal)
                                                                            In Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communities
                            (2000/C 233/09)                                 (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                            (Agents: J. Devadder and A. Snoecx, assisted by D. Waelbroeck)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         — application for a declaration that, by adopting and maintai-
                                                                            ning in force Article 2 of the Law of 9 July 1975 on the control
                                                                            of insurance undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      12 August 1994 (Moniteur Belge of 16 September 1994, p.
                     in the European Court Reports)                         23525), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
In Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder,                   1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-
assisted by H. Gilliams) v Commission of the European Com-                  tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12.8.2000
assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and                           laying down detailed rules governing imports of ‘baby-beef’
88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive) (OJ 1992                   originating in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the
L 228, p. 1) and under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth                    Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-                   Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26) — the Court (Second
teur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,             Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;              of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Re-                  Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
gistrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:                 given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 2        Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February
      of the law of 9 July 1975 on the control of insurance                1992 concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the
      undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of 12 August            Community of products originating in the Republics of Croatia
      1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
      obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June             Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, p. 1) and Commission
      1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-        Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992 laying down detailed
      tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life         rules governing imports of ‘baby-beef’ originating in the Republics of
      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and                     Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-
      88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive);                     Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26)
                                                                           must be interpreted as meaning that the importation into the
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Community in September and October 1992 of consignments of
                                                                           ‘baby-beef’ originating in and coming from the former Yugoslav
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 Republic of Macedonia with certificates of origin issued by the
                                                                           Yugoslav body which was the competent authority prior to the
                                                                           denunciation by the Community of the EEC-Yugoslavia Cooperation
                                                                           Agreement was not capable of benefiting from the arrangements for
                                                                           reduced import levies provided for in Article 7 of Regulation
                                                                           No 545/92 even though a new competent body had not been
                                                                           designated for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     time the import operations took place.
                        (Second Chamber)                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                          of 18 May 2000
in Case C-230/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Treviso): Amministrazio-
     ne delle Finanze dello Stato v Schiavon Silvano (1)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Common commercial policy — Regulation No 545/92 and                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation No 859/92 — Imports into the Community of
‘baby-beef’ originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of                                           of 18 May 2000
Macedonia — Body competent to issue certificates of origin)
                                                                           in Case C-301/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (2000/C 233/11)                                  the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): KVS
                                                                           International BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
                                                                                en Visserij (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Agriculture — Animal health in the veterinary sector in
                                                                           intra-Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     of domestic animals of the bovine species — Certification of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          bovine semen intended for export to a Member State —
                                                                           Directives 88/407/EEC and 93/60/EEC — Scope ratione
In Case C-230/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                            temporis)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
e Penale di Treviso (District Court, Treviso), Italy, for a                                          (2000/C 233/12)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Schiavon Silvano, an insolvent firm, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February 1992
concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Community of products originating in the Republics of                                         in the European Court Reports)
Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, p. 1)                 In Case C-301/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the College van Beroep


title: Case T-27/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — US Steel Košice v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/25

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — US Steel Košice v Commission
   (Case T-27/07)
   (2007/C 69/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: US Steel Košice sro (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Vermulst, lawyer, and C. Thomas, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Slovakia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period 2008-2012 notified by Slovakia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC (1).
   In support of it's application, the applicant firstly alleges that the contested decision infringes Title 4, point 2(a) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession 2003 (2) in that it incorrectly asserts that the conditions in that provision are independent obligations applying until 2009 regardless of whether Slovakia continues to grant the applicant the tax exemption that Slovakia may apply to the applicant until the end of the fiscal year 2009 notwithstanding Article 87 and 88 EC. The applicant argues that, accordingly, the decision is also contrary to criterion (4) of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, which provides that the national allocation plan shall be consistent with other Community legislative and policy instruments.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the principle of legitimate expectations in that the Commission at several occasion made the applicant expect that the production limitations provided for in Title 4, point 2(a) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession would cease to apply once the applicant no longer benefited from the tax exemption.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that the contested decision is unlawful because, instead of carrying out its limited functions under Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission carried out an entirely independent calculation of the appropriate total emissions in Slovakia and imposed this on the Slovak Republic. Thereby the Commission usurped the competence of the Member States under Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 2003/87/EC.
   Fourthly, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful in that it was based on a rigid mathematical calculation which was imposed without public consultation and which ignored known factors influencing emissions specific to Slovakia in the period 2008-2012. The applicant finds that this approach violated Article 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, criteria (1), (2) and (3) of Annex III to the said directive as well as the principle of legitimate expectations. The applicant contends that insofar as the Commission possessed any margin of appreciation, the Commission committed a manifest error in that appreciation.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers as it was motivated by a desire to achieve a scarcity of allowances as such in order to drive the prices of allowances upwards.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 2003, p. 32).

      (2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ L 236, 2003, p. 33).


title: Case C-581/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany), lodged on 13 December 2010 — Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany), lodged on 13 December 2010 — Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-581/10)
   2011/C 72/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson

      Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the right to compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) constitute a claim for non-compensatory damages within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air (‘the Montreal Convention’)?

               2.

               What is the relationship between, on the one hand, the right to compensation based on Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 which a passenger has, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923, if he reaches his final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time and, on the other hand, the right to compensation in respect of delay provided for in Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, regard being had to the exclusion under the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention?

               3.

               How may the interpretative criterion underlying the Court of Justice’s judgment in Sturgeon and Others, which allows the right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be extended to cover cases of delay, be reconciled with the interpretative criterion which the Court of Justice applied to that regulation in its judgment in Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-447/06: Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt., Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Rt. v Magyar Állam, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt., Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Rt. v Magyar Állam, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete
   (Case C-447/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/61)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-517/11: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2012 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (Representation of two polo players) (Community trade mark — Partial refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/31

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2012 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (Representation of two polo players)
   (Case T-517/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 287/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United States Polo Association (Lexington, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2011 (Case R 1170/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between United States Polo Association and The Polo/Lauren Company, LP.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the defendant and the intervener.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1996 by Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination Rurale, Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la Coordination Rurale and Philippe de Villiers against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-53/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 180/35
Article 5 (4 ) which is the only provision applicable in this            Pleas in law and main arguments:
case .
                                                                         The applicants complain that the Commission failed, in the
In the alternative, even assuming that Sogecable were                    context of its task of monitoring trade between Member
'jointly controlled' by Prisa and Canal Plus Francia, as the             States, public health and consumer protection, to introduce
Commission maintains, the applicant states, first, that Prisa            appropriate measures for the protection of public health on
and Canal Plus Francia would not jointly have any of the                 the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis ( BSE),
powers and rights set out in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( b ) and, secondly,        known as ' mad cow disease '. They state that the steps taken
that, even if they jointly had the powers and rights laid down           by the Commission since 1 988 to prevent the spread of BSE,
in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( b ), their turnover should not be added to          and possibly Creutzfeldt-Jacob's disease, must be regarded
Sogecable's turnover, pursuant to Article 5 ( 4 ) ( c ).                 as inadequate, having regard to the embargo measures
                                                                         precipitately decided on 26 March 1996 by that same
                                                                         Commission, which nevertheless has no more information
                                                                         than previously on any potential risk. The applicants
                                                                         maintain that the Commission is liable, inasmuch as it
                                                                         breached the principle of proportionality and made an
                                                                         incorrect assessment of the facts, giving rise to a risk to
                                                                         public health and consumers and having a manifest impact
                                                                         on trade in bovine livestock in the European Union .
Action brought on 16 April 1996 by Syndicat des
Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination Rurale,
Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la Coordination Rurale               Although the first recorded case of mad cow disease dates
and Philippe de Villiers against the Commission of the                   from 1986 , on a farm in Kent in the United Kingdom, and
                      European Communities                               despite numerous communications, scientific and
                                                                         journalistic, confidential and public, on the risks of the
                            ( Case T-53/96 )
                                                                         spread of BSE and the risks of human contamination, the
                              ( 96/C 180/86 )                            Commission, on the pretext of a lack of scientific certainty,
                                                                         failed to take the only measure to be taken in the face of a
                                                                         public health risk, namely the total prohibition of exports
                (Language of the case: French)                           and the possible slaughter of herds .
An action against the Commission of the European                         The applicants consider that the Commission failed to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        perform its obligation to supervise and monitor
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1996 by                 intra-Community trade . As a result of that failure, they, like
the Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la                      any other European citizen, have suffered non-material
Coordination Rurale and the Syndicat des Producteurs de                  damage for which they seek reparation; some of the
Lait de la Coordination Rurale, established at L'Isle                    applicants also claim to have suffered material damage, the
Jourdain ( France ), and Philippe de Villiers , residing at Les          extent of which is to be established in the course of the
Aubretières ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of              proceedings .
the Paris Bar .
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— declare the European Commission liable, on the basis of
     Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
     the Treaty on European Union, for failure to introduce              Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Oleifici Italiani SpA
     measures for the protection of public health on the                  and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA against the
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis, known as                            Commission of the European Communities
     mad cow disease ;
                                                                                ( Case T-54/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/87
— order the European Union to pay the Syndicat des
     Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination
     Rurale, the Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
     Coordination Rurale and Philippe de Villiers the sum of
     FF 1 as token damages for the non-material damage
     suffered;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
— appoint such expert as the Court may think fit to                       Instance of the European Communities on 17 April 1 996 by
     determine the loss suffered by the members of the                    Oleifici Italiani SpA, whose registered office is at Ostuni
     Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la                      ( BR ) ( Italy ), and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA, whose
     Coordination Rurale and the Syndicat des Producteurs                 registered office is at Bari ( Italy ), represented by Antonio
     de Lait de la Coordination Rurale .                                  Tizzano and Gianmichele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar,


title: Case C-334/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Frank Scheffler v Landkreis Wartburgkreis

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/42

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Frank Scheffler v Landkreis Wartburgkreis
   (Case C-334/09)
   2009/C 267/73
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frank Scheffler

      Defendant: Landkreis Wartburgkreis

      Question referred

   May a Member State, in accordance with Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC, (1) exercise its authority under Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439/EEC — to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State — in relation to a certificate of aptitude to drive submitted by the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State if the certificate was issued after the date of issue of the driving licence and is also based on an examination of the party concerned carried out after the issue of the driving licence, but relates to circumstances that took place prior to the issue of the driving licence.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1).


title: Case T-198/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 — Mebrom v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Importation of methyl bromide into the European Union — Delay in setting up an Internet site for requesting and obtaining import licences and quotas — Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Damage resulting from loss of profit — Actual damage)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 — Mebrom v Commission
   (Case T-198/05) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Importation of methyl bromide into the European Union - Delay in setting up an Internet site for requesting and obtaining import licences and quotas - Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Damage resulting from loss of profit - Actual damage)
   (2007/C 155/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mebrom NV (Rieme-Ertvelde, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and X. Lewis, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission's failure to set up a system allowing the applicant to import methyl bromide for critical uses into the European Union in January and February 2005
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case C-502/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Ergün Torun v Stadt Augsburg) (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Child of a Turkish worker who has reached the age of majority and completed a course of vocational training in the host Member State — Criminal conviction — Effect on right of residence)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Ergün Torun v Stadt Augsburg)
   (Case C-502/04) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Child of a Turkish worker who has reached the age of majority and completed a course of vocational training in the host Member State - Criminal conviction - Effect on right of residence)
   (2006/C 143/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ergün Torun

      Defendant: Stadt Augsburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Articles 6, 7 and 14 of Decision 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council — Turkish national who is a member of the family of a Turkish worker, who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force in a Member State, and who has been given a three year prison sentence, not suspended — Loss of right of residence
   Operative part of the judgment
   The child, who has reached the age of majority, of a Turkish migrant worker who has been legally employed in a Member State for more than three years, and who has successfully finished a vocational training course in that State and satisfies the conditions set out in the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not lose the right of residence that is the corollary of the right to respond to any offer of employment conferred by that provision except in the circumstances laid down in Article 14(1) of that provision or when he leaves the territory of the host Member State for a significant length of time without legitimate reason.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case C-520/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/15

         Action brought on 11 October 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-520/11)
   2011/C 362/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Bianchi, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to comply with Commission Decision 2009/726/EC ordering France to suspend the application of certain interim protection measures prohibiting the introduction onto its territory, for the purpose of human consumption, of milk and milk products coming from a holding where a classical scrapie case is confirmed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(3) TEU and 288 TFEU;

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 25 February 2009, France adopted a measure relating to the prohibition of import of milk and milk products for human consumption from ovine and caprine origin onto the French territory, in the light of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies intended for human consumption.
   The Commission put the matter before the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) with a view to the extension, amendment or abrogation of the abovementioned national interim protective measures.
   On the basis of the scientific opinions available and the consultations with the SCoFCAH, on 24 September 2009 the Commission considered that the interim protective measures adopted by France went beyond what was necessary to avoid a serious risk to human health, even taking into account the precautionary principle, and adopted, on the basis of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) Decision 2009/726/EC (2) ordering France to suspend the application of those measures.
   The French Republic lodged an action for annulment of that decision. It did not, however, request suspension of operation of that decision.
   The Commission claims that, by failing to comply with the abovementioned decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(3) TEU and 288 TFEU.
   First, under Article 4(3) TEU, the Member States are to take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.
   Second, under Article 288 TFEU, decisions are binding in their entirety on the parties to whom they are addressed in order to ensure their full effectiveness.
   Lastly, since the action for annulment brought by the French Republic against Decision 2009/726/EC is not suspensive and since the French Republic has not requested suspension of operation of that decision, the application of the decision has not been suspended.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 24 September 2009 concerning interim protection measures taken by France as regards the introduction onto its territory of milk and milk products coming from a holding where a classical scrapie case is confirmed (OJ 2009 L 258, p. 27).


title: Case F-127/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/35

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-127/12)
      (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)
      (2014/C 71/69)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision refusing to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the late despatch of the bill of lading relating to the transport of his personal effects from Luanda (Angola), to where he had been assigned, to Italy.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-343/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino — Italy) — Bavaria NV, Bavaria Italia s.r.l v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Admissibility — Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 1347/2001 — Validity — Generic name — Coexistence of a trade mark and a protected geographical indication)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino — Italy) — Bavaria NV, Bavaria Italia s.r.l v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV
   (Case C-343/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Admissibility - Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 1347/2001 - Validity - Generic name - Coexistence of a trade mark and a protected geographical indication)
   2009/C 205/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bavaria NV, Bavaria Italia s.r.l

      Defendant: Bayerischer Brauerbund eV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Torino –Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 2001 L 182, p. 3) — If valid, possibility of adverse effects, brought about by registration of the protected geographical indication ‘Bayerisches Bier’, on the validity or use of pre-existing marks of third parties in which the word ‘Bavaria’ appears.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Consideration of the first question asked by the referring court has not disclosed any factor liable to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92;

               2.

               Regulation No 1347/2001 must be interpreted as having no adverse effects on the validity and the possibility of using, in one of the situations referred to in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, pre-existing trade marks of third parties in which the word ‘Bavaria’ appears and which were registered in good faith before the date on which the application for registration of the protected geographical indication ‘Bayerisches Bier’ was lodged, provided that those marks are not affected by the grounds for invalidity or revocation as provided for by Article 3(1)(c) and (g) and Article 12(2)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case F-17/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/53

         Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-17/16)
   (2016/C 191/77)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have regard to the late request for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 and for annulment of the implied decision not to grant that request for review.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 17 August 2015, received by the applicant by e-mail, not to have regard to the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 following the decision of the selection board in that competition;

               —

               annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 not to grant the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs.


28.7.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 212/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-98/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-124/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 212/37)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/38)
By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from           By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-98/00: Commission of the European           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v Republic of Greece.                                  the register of Case C-124/00: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Case C-144/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the factual context of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/5

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah
   (Case C-144/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the factual context of the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 340/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Mestre

      Criminal proceedings against

   Asad Abdallah

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mestre — Direct applicability of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Interpretation of Article 2 of that directive — National legislation providing for a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 to be imposed on a foreign national who unlawfully enters or remains in the national territory, as well as for the possibility for the court to replace that fine with deportation for a period of less than five years, in the case of a criminal conviction.

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Mestre (Italy), by decision of 16 March 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.05.2011.