title: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 1999 in Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Application for interim measures - Structural funds - Financing of Community initiatives - Modification of indicative allocations)

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 333/11
       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                 Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue d’Eich — appeal
                          of 29 June 1999                                  against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (First Chamber) of 21 December 1998 in Case T-
in Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic v Commission of the                   122/98 Gluiber v Council and Commission (not yet published
European Communities, supported by Ireland and the                         in the European Court Reports), seeking to have that order set
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                   aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the Council
                                                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the European
(Application for interim measures — Structural funds —                     Communities — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
Financing of Community initiatives — Modification of                       P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
                       indicative allocations)                             and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
                                                                           R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 July 1999, the
                          (1999/C 333/21)                                  operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           1. The appeal is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2. Ms Gluiber is to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
In Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,
assisted by I.M. Braguglia) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: E. de March, K. Simonsson and H. Spey-
art), supported by Ireland (Agent: J. Payne, assisted by
D. McGuinness and E. Kent) and United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted by
D. Wyatt) — application for suspension of operation of the                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
decision of the Commission of 16 December 1998 approving
modifications to the indicative allocation of Community                                               of 8 July 1999
initiatives, communicated to the Italian Republic by letter from
the Secretary-General of the Commission dated 19 January                   in Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA v Council of
1999, and of all measures based thereon or linked thereto,                 the European Union and Commission of the European
alternatively for the adoption of other provisional measures —                                       Communities (1)
the President of the Court has made an order on 29 June 1999,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Single European Act
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                                              — Customs agent)
2. The costs are reserved.                                                                           (1999/C 333/23)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999, p. 7.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           In Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA, a company
                          (First Chamber)                                  incorporated under French law, established at Roubaix
                                                                           (France), represented by Pierre Ricard, Advocate with a right
                           of 5 July 1999                                  of audience before the French Conseil d’État and Cour de
                                                                           Cassation, and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris Bar,
in Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde — appeal against the judgment
                             munities (1)                                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case T-113/96 Dubois
        (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)                     et Fils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-125, seeking
                                                                           to have that judgment set aside and seeking an order requiring
                          (1999/C 333/22)                                  the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities jointly and severally to pay to
                                                                           Édouard Dubois et Fils SA, pursuant to the second paragraph
                   (Language of the case: German)                          of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of
                                                                           Article 288 EC), the sum of FRF 112 339 702 by way of
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     compensation for the damage caused to the applicant in its
                   in the European Court Reports)                          activities as a customs agent, together with an order requiring
                                                                           them to pay the costs, the other parties to the proceedings
In Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                being the Council of the European Union (Agents: Guus
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,                    Houttuin and Maria Cristina Giorgi) and the Commission of


title: Case T-403/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-403/06) (1)

   (2008/C 142/69)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-586/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/6

         Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission
   (Case C-586/12 P)
   2013/C 71/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               partially set aside the judgment under appeal, in so far as the General Court held therein that the Commission demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that KWS acted as leader in the cartel established by the Commission;

               —

               partially annul Article 1(j) of the contested decision, (1) in so far as the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 27.36 million on KWS;

               —

               set a new fine for KWS in the amount of ;

               —

               order the Commission to pay a part of KWS’s procedural costs at first instance and in this appeal, to be determined more precisely by the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.
   First plea
   In its first plea, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and fundamental requirements relating to the consistency of judicial decisions in that, in the judgment under appeal, it used the same evidence, without stating any reasons, let alone any convincing reasons, in a contradictory manner against the different applicants, KWS and Shell Nederland Verkoop Maatschappij B.V. (‘SNV’, whose action was the subject of the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 in Case T-343/06), whereas, according to the contested decision, KWS and SNV together had the same role in the context of the cartel arrangements.

               —

               The General Court’s assessment of the alleged instigating and leadership roles of KWS and of SNV should be seen in conjunction with one another: the Commission found in the decision that KWS and SNV were jointly the driving force behind the cartel.

               —

               The probative value of a number of items of evidence relied upon by the Commission against KWS and SNV was assessed by the Court in a contradictory manner which is legally unacceptable.

               —

               On the basis of the foregoing, the finding that KWS was alone in having a leadership role in the cartel established between bitumen suppliers and road builders is untenable.

         Second plea
   By its second plea, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the prohibition on taking arbitrary measures, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality by considering in the judgment under appeal that the 50 % increase in the fine imposed on KWS on the basis of the existence of an instigating and leadership role could be maintained, even though the General Court had established that there were insufficient grounds for finding that KWS had an instigating role.

               —

               If the finding that KWS alone can be attributed a leadership role cannot be upheld, that also applies in respect of the increase in the fine.

               —

               By maintaining the increase in the fine set by the Commission, even though the Commission did not put forward sufficient evidence in respect of one of the two circumstances justifying an increase in the fine, the General Court ‘rewards’ the Commission for its careless assessment in the contested decision.

               —

               The principle of equal treatment and of proportionality preclude the General Court from maintaining the 50 % increase in KWS’s fine (in full moreover), whereas it annulled that increase in full in the parallel proceedings in Case T-343/06 as regards SNV and Others.

               —

               On the basis of the foregoing, the increase in fine as determined for KWS cannot be maintained.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)).


title: Case T-498/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/16

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-498/17)
   (2017/C 330/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Álvares de Linera Granda (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission and SRB

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

               —

               Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

               —

               By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
   In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2005 in Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request relating to a very large number of documents — Total refusal of access — Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination — Exceptions)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 April 2005
   in Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request relating to a very large number of documents - Total refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination - Exceptions)
   (2005/C 155/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-2/03: Verein für Konsumenteninformation, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by A. Klauser, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Rating and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, established in Vienna, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by Österreichische Volksbanken AG, established in Vienna, and Niederösterreichische Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG, established in Sankt Pölten (Austria), represented by R. Roniger, A. Ablasser and W. Hemetsberger, lawyers — application for annulment of Commission Decision D (2002) 330472 of 18 December 2002 relating to a request for access to the administrative file in Case COMP/36.571/D-1, Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’ — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger, P. Mengozzi, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Decision D (2002) 330472 relating to a request for access to the administrative file in Case COMP/36.571/D-1, Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


               19.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/36

         Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-2/15)
   (2015/C 92/10)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make as such part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 9 September 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 9 July 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment, as referred to at point 66he of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act as such part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-125/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d'arbitrage de la Commission de Litiges Voyages): Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier v Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA (Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC — Arbitration panel)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-125/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d'arbitrage de la Commission de Litiges Voyages): Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier v Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA (1)

   (Questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Reference to the Court - National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC - Arbitration panel)
   (2005/C 82/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-125/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Collège d'arbitrage de la Commission de Litiges Voyages (Belgium), made by decision of 4 December 2003, received at the Court on 8 March 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Guy Denuit, Betty Cordenier and Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA – the Court (Fourth Chamber) composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The Court is not competent to rule on questions referred to it by the College d'àrbitrage de la Commission de Litiges Voyages.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.


title: Case T-38/15: Action brought on 23 January 2015  — Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/41

         Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission
   (Case T-38/15)
   (2015/C 089/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena and M. Bolsa Ferruz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares the existence of State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               annul, consequently, the recovery orders contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and principal arguments are those put forward in Case T-36/15 HISPASAT v Commission.


title: Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid for Leipzig/Halle Airport — Funding of investments relating to the construction of the new southern runway — Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Airport infrastructure)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08) (1)

   (State aid - Aid for Leipzig/Halle Airport - Funding of investments relating to the construction of the new southern runway - Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Concept of ‘economic activity’ - Airport infrastructure)
   2011/C 145/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) (represented by U. Soltész, lawyer) (Case T-443/08); Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG (Leipzig, Germany) and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH) (Leipzig) (represented by: M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer) (Case T-455/08)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, B. Martenczuk and E. Righini, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and B. Klein, Agents); and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) (represented by L. Giesberts, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig/Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08 for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-443/08 as inadmissible;

               3.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig/Halle Airport in so far as it fixes at EUR 350 million the amount of State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany intends to grant to Leipzig/Halle Airport for the construction of a new southern runway and related airport infrastructure;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T-455/08;

               5.

               Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs in Case T-443/08;

               6.

               Orders Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH to bear their own costs;

               7.

               Orders the Commission bear its own costs in Case T-455/08;

               8.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) to bear their own costs in Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 20.12.2008.


title: Case F-148/12: Action brought on 7 December 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/30

         Action brought on 7 December 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA
   (Case F-148/12)
   2013/C 71/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision determining the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 9 March 2012 determining the 2012 appraisal report, which covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the implied decision of 26 October 2012 of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking the revision of his 2012 appraisal report;

               —

               Order the EMCDDA to pay the costs.


title: Case T-169/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Charlott SARL v OHIM — Charlot (figurative mark Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition )

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/31

         Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Charlott SARL v OHIM — Charlot (figurative mark ‘Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition’)
   (Case T-169/06)
   (2006/C 212/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Charlott SARL (Chapanost, France) (represented by: L. Conrad, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Charlot — Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros SA (Lisbon, Portugal)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 24 April 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 223/2005-2);

               —

               rule that the company Charlot — Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros SA does not fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

               —

               order OHIM to proceed with registration of the mark lodged by Charlott SARL;

               —

               order OHIM or any unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the present proceedings, especially the recoverable costs under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court of 2 May 1991.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Charlott SARL

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition’ for goods in Class 25 — Application No 001853274

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Charlot –Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘Charlot’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 on the grounds that, according to the applicant, the opposing party has not proven genuine use of its mark during the five preceding years and has not furnished proof of the extent of the use allegedly made of that mark.


title: Action brought on 11 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-385/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/15
2. On a proper construction of the Combined                         The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
     Nomenclature, as established by Annex I to                     yet adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of                      directives at issue fully into the Greek legal order.
     10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs             (2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
     Tariff, such goods are to be classified under the              (3) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
     heading which occurs last in numerical order, namely           (4) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 67.
     subheading 6212 10 00.
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
                                                                    Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Glasoltherm
                                                                    Sarl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 11 November 1997 by the Commission                                        (Case C-399/97)
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                           Republic                                                           (98/C 55/28)
                       (Case C-385/97)
                         (98/C 55/27)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities on 19 November 1997 by
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                 Glasoltherm Sarl, represented by Mr Penciolelli, lawyer, of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             18 Avenue de la LibeÂration, 91130 Ris Orangis (France).
on 11 November 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          Glasoltherm Sarl claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        to support by all means, including the provision of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             financial assistance, over a period of 10 years from the
                                                                        date of entry into industrial service of the two
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit               demonstration operations referred to, the action taken
     laid down the laws, regulations and administrative                 by a commercial company formed by Glasoltherm Sarl
     provisions necessary in order to comply with:                      to market Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating
                                                                        technology in the European Community,
     Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) of 22 December
         1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC (2) on the               Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
         financing of health inspections and controls of                to pay the costs.
         fresh meat and poultrymeat, and
     Ð Commission Directive 94/59/EC (3) of 2 December              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         1994 amending for the third time the Annexes
         to Council Directive 77/96/EEC (4) on the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
         examination for trichinae (trichinella spiralis) upon      Case C-388/96 (1).
         importation from third countries of fresh meat
         derived from domestic swine,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997, p. 11.
                                                                        OJ C 295, 27.9.1997, p. 9.
         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
         obligations under the Treaty and those Directives,
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                    Netherlands
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which they are addressed.                                         (Case C-408/97)
Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty,                                         (98/C 55/29)
Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from             An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
actions taken by the institutions of the Community.                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-648/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/25

         Action brought on 6 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-648/13)
   2014/C 45/42
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose, incompletely transposing, or incorrectly transposing Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27, Article 8(1), Article 9(2), Article 10(3) and Article 11(5) of, and Annex V (points 1.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4 and 2.4.1) and Annex VII (Part A, points 7.2 to 7.10) to, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and under Article 24 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27

   The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has failed correctly and fully to transpose the definitions contained in Article 2.19, 2.20, 2.26 and 2.27 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

      Article 8(1)

   The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that the Polish provisions do not set out requirements corresponding to the specifications for Natura-2000 sites.

      Article 9(2)

   In the Commission’s view, Article 9(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC was not fully or properly transposed in so far as concerns the obligation to include, in the river basin management plans, a report on the steps planned for effecting recovery of costs which will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of that directive.

      Article 10(3)

   The Commission takes the view that the Republic of Poland has not transposed the obligation set out in Article 10(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, even though transposition of that provision is crucial to achieving the objectives of the water directive.

      Article 11(5)

   The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has incorrectly transposed the provision contained in Article 11(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC inasmuch as the scope of the corresponding Polish provisions is narrower than in the directive.

      Annex V

   The Commission takes the view that, although Annex V was in large measure transposed, a number of points in that annex were not satisfactorily transposed in Polish law. The criticism of incorrect transposition relates in particular to the inclusion of estimates with regard to the degree of reliability in the river management plans (points 1.3, 1.3.4 and 2.4.1), the monitoring of habitats and species in protected areas (point 1.3.5) and the exclusion of hydromorphological elements in the classification of water status (point 1.4.2).

      Annex VII

   The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that it incorrectly transposed points 7.2 to 7.10 of Part A of Annex VII, since the provisions on the national water-protection programme must be distinguished from the river basin management plans within the terms of Annex VII to Directive 2000/60/EC. For that reason, in the Commission’s view, the national provisions adopted by the Polish authorities which constitute transposition of Article 11 of the directive are insufficient to ensure transposition of the requirements set out in points 7.2 to 7.10 of Annex VII.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case C-158/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Structural funds — Repayment of Community aid in the case of irregularity — Failure to publish or make known the conditions of grant of the aid — Beneficiary's lack of knowledge — Good faith — Legal certainty — Effectiveness — Article 10 EC)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-158/06) (1)

   (Structural funds - Repayment of Community aid in the case of irregularity - Failure to publish or make known the conditions of grant of the aid - Beneficiary's lack of knowledge - Good faith - Legal certainty - Effectiveness - Article 10 EC)
   (2007/C 183/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stichting ROM-projecten

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 6 of Commission Decision C (95) 1753 of 16 October 1995 concerning a contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme within the framework of the SME Community initiative for the benefit of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 in the Netherlands — Whether unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise to be directly applicable with regard to the final beneficiary — Interpretation of Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Non-recovery, following an irregularity, vis-à-vis a beneficiary who was not informed of the Commission's decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   Where the conditions for the grant of a financial assistance by the Community to a Member State are set out in the grant decision but that Member State has neither published them nor made them known to the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance, it is not contrary to Community law to apply the principle of legal certainty so as to preclude repayment by that beneficiary of the amounts wrongly paid, provided that it is possible to establish the beneficiary's good faith. In such a case, the Member State concerned may be held financially liable for the amounts not recovered in order to give effect to the Community's right to obtain repayment of the amount of the assistance.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-333/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Caixa Económica Montepio Geral v Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho and Others

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Caixa Económica Montepio Geral v Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho and Others
   (Case C-333/17)
   (2017/C 256/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixa Económica Montepio Geral

      Defendants: Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho, Maria de Lurdes Coelho Pimenta Marinho, Daniel Pimenta Marinho, Vera da Conceição Pimenta Marinho

      Question referred

   Does EU Law — in so far as it recognises the fundamental right of Union citizens to consumer protection and the fundamental right to equal treatment of citizens and undertakings, enshrined in Article 38 and Article 21, respectively, of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] — preclude national legislation (sole article of Decree-Law No 32765 of 29 April 1943, which establishes an exception to the general scheme provided for in Article 1143 of the Civil Code), in that that legislation accords the banking sector treatment different from that received by the remaining citizens and undertakings, as regards the form that loan contracts must take, envisaging a less formal form for loan contracts concluded by banks?


title: Case C-473/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-128/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 68/4                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.3.2002
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                                 at the relevant date and, if not, whether the difference is
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                               perceptible, rendering it apt to confer distinctive character
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                           on the Marks;
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-128/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                   —     in failing to assess whether the specific pattern (speckles
                                                                               and square or triangular inlays in the centre and on the
                  Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                               upper surface of the tablet) was already part of the usual
                                                                               get-ups of the tablets on the market at the relevant date
                        (Case C-473/01 P)                                      and, if not, whether the difference is perceptible, rendering
                                                                               it apt to confer distinctive character on the Marks.
                          (2002/C 68/08)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 25.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in case T-128/00 between
Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.              Action brought on 6 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-475/01)
—     annul the judgment; insofar as the remainder of the
      action was dismissed;
                                                                                (2002/C 68/09)
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
      and on appeal.
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 Decem-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Maria Kondou-Durande and Enrico Traversa,
                                                                         Legal Advisers.
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
the following respects:
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     in deeming it unnecessary to decide whether the distinc-
      tive character of the Mark should be assessed by reference
      to the date on which the application for registration is           —     declare that, by maintaining in force excise duty on ouzo
      filed or the date of actual registration;                                at a lower rate than that applied to other alcoholic
                                                                               beverages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
—     in holding that the level of attention given by the average              obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 of the
      consumer to the shape and colours of washing machine                     EC Treaty;
      and dishwasher tablets is not high;
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     in deeming it appropriate to ascertain whether the Marks
      applied for will enable the members of the public targeted
      to distinguish the products from those having a different
      trade origin when they come to select a product for
      purchase;                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     in holding that the bevelled edges, slightly rounded
      corners or chamfered edges of the tablets are not likely to        Law No 2127/93 transposes Directive 92/83/EEC (1) into
      be perceived by the average consumer as a distinctive              Greek law. That Law sets the basic rate of excise duty at GRD
      feature of the shape claimed, capable of distinguishing it         per 100 litres of pure alcohol. However, Article 26 of the Law
      from other washing machine or dishwasher tablets and               provides for a 50 % reduction in the basic rate with regard to
      in failing to assess whether such features were already            ouzo. Thus, for that particular product the excise duty amounts
      part of the usual get up(s) of thetablets on the market            to only GRD per 100 litres of pure alcohol.


title: Case C-188/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste — Domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks in the countryside — Waste not covered by other legislation — Failure to transpose)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-188/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Waste - Domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks in the countryside - Waste not covered by other legislation - Failure to transpose)
   2009/C 312/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Lawunmi and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement, so far as domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks is concerned, of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Waste not covered by other legislation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, save in County Cavan, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 March 1996 in Case T-230/94: Frederick Farrugia v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Commission decision refusing to award a fellowship to the applicant - Criteria for eligibility - British Overseas citizen - Erroneous reasons - Non-contractual liability - Non-material damage)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 133/21
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Communities and, second, an order requiring the
                     of 21 March 1996                               Commission to pay the token sum of one ecu by way of
                                                                    compensation for the non-material damage which the
in Case T-230/94 : Frederick Farrugia v. Commission of the          applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the contested
                 European Communities ( x )                         decision — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ),
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing to             composed of R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia
award a fellowship to the applicant — Criteria for eligibility      Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
— British Overseas citizen — Erroneous reasons —                    has given a judgment on 21 March 1996, in which it:
     Non-contractual liability — Non-material damage)
                         ( 96/C 133/47 )                            1 , annuls the decision of the Commission of 13 January
                                                                          1 994 awarding an invalidity pension to the applicant;
              (Language of the case: English)                       2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
In Case T-230/94 : Frederick Farrugia, resident in Athens,          3 , orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens Bar, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Ana                (') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira and, during the oral procedure, Peter
Oliver) — application for the annullment of the
Commission decision of 26 April 1994 rejecting the
applicant's application for a research training fellowship
and for compensation for material and non-material
damage allegedly caused to the applicant by that decision —
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed
of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy and                                              of 21 March 1996
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          in Case T-10/95 : Akli Chehab v. Commission of the
judgment on 21 March 1996 , in which it:                                               European Communities (*)
                                                                    (Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Recognition of
1 , annuls the Commission decision in its letter of 26 April                                     aggravation)
     1994;
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/49 )
2 , dismisses the claim for compensation;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    In Case T-10/95 : Akli Chehab, a retired former official of
(M OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                    Paris, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves
                                                                    Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for the
                                                                    annulment of a decision whereby the Commission declined
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    to recognize a 3% aggravation in the partial permanent
                     of 21 March 1996                               invalidity of the applicant and, second, an order requiring
in Case T-3 76/94: Georgette Otten v. Commission of the             the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material
                 European Communities ( 1 )                         damage which the applicant claims to have suffered in the
(Officials — Invalidity Committee — Composition —                   present case — the Court of First Instance ( Second
   Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity)         Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and C. W.
                                                                    Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                         ( 96/C 133/48 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    21 March 1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1 , annuls the    decision of the Commission of 22 March
                                                                          1 994 in so far as it limits to 3% the degree of partial
In Case T-376/94 : Georgette Otten, a former official of the
                                                                          permanent    invalidity from which the applicant is
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                       recognized  to be suffering;
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices       2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and           3 , orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
Julian Currall ) — application, first, for the annulment
of the decision of the Commission of 13 January 1994
awarding the appplicant an invalidity pension fixed in              ( ! ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of
the Staff Regulations of officials of the European


title: Case T-565/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2012 — Corsica Ferries France v Commission (State aid — Maritime cabotage sector — Service of general economic interest — Private investor in a market economy test — Social policy of the Member States — Restructuring aid — Effects of a judgment annulling a decision)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2012 — Corsica Ferries France v Commission
   (Case T-565/08) (1)

   (State aid - Maritime cabotage sector - Service of general economic interest - Private investor in a market economy test - Social policy of the Member States - Restructuring aid - Effects of a judgment annulling a decision)
   2012/C 343/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Corsica Ferries France SAS (Bastia, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, and subsequently by G. de Bergues, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, acting as Agents) and Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (Marseilles, France) (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning the measures C 58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 180).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Annuls the first and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning the measures C 58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear the costs of the applicant together with its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and SNCM to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-243/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues
   (Case C-243/17)
   (2017/C 256/04)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP

      Defendant: António da Silva Rodrigues

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the date from which the limitation period of four years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) (1) [of Regulation No 2988/95] starts to run for instantaneous infringements (not continuous or repeated)?

               2.

               In the case of an infringement that is not continuous or repeated, are the rules applicable according to which ‘in the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated’?

               3.

               Does the rule laid down in Article 3, according to which the ‘limitation shall become effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty’ also apply in the case of a multiannual programme, that is to say, does the period referred to here also run until the termination of the multiannual programme?

               4.

               Which of the following is the meaning of the expression ‘In the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated’:

                           (a)

                           the limitation period never expires before the definitive termination of a multiannual programme?

                           (b)

                           the limitation period is suspended as long as the programme lasts, that is, until its definitive termination, and starts running again as of that moment?

                           (c)

                           the limitation period continues to run and, therefore, even if the programme in question is multiannual, proceedings may be time-barred before the definitive termination of the programme if, in the meantime, that period has expired?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests — OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-178/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/51

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission
   (Case T-178/14)
   2014/C 142/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case T-20/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI — Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)
   (Case T-20/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI - Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 191/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola (Milan, Italy) (represented by F. Cecchi, P. Pozzi and F. Ghisletti Giovanni, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 2265/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG and Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-391/05: Action brought on  24 October 2005  — Commission/Reagecon Diagnostics

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/25

         Action brought on 24 October 2005 — Commission/Reagecon Diagnostics
   (Case T-391/05)
   (2005/C 330/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities [represented by: L. Flynn, agent]

      Defendant(s): Reagecon Diagnostics Ltd
   Form of order sought

               —

               Condemn the defendant to pay to the Commission

                           —

                                       a)

                                       the sum of 169 658,65 Euros (one hundred and sixty nine thousand, six hundred and fifty eight Euros and sixty five cents), corresponding to 161 953,99 Euros as the amount due and 7 704,66 Euros as late payment interest as of 21 October 2005, at a rate of 5,53 %;

                           —

                                       b)

                                       the sum of 24,53714 Euros per day by way of interest, at a rate of 5,53 %, from 16 November 2005 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full;

               —

               condemn the defendant to pay the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant contract no MAS3-CT-1998-0177 in the context of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of marine science and technology known as the ‘MAST III programme’ (1). The contract concerned the execution of a cooperative research project called ‘Development and test of an innovative ion selective electrodes monitoring and control system for total nitrogen in marine waters’, which was intended to run for 24 months, from 1 December 1998.
   The contract provided that the Commission would make a financial contribution to the relevant project, and an advance of 268 000 ECU was paid to the defendant on 1 December 1998. A further interim payment of 134 417 EUR was made on 6 September 2000. The amounts thus paid by the Commission to the defendant totalled 402 417 EUR.
   The Commission audited the contract on 24 and 25 September 2001. The audit concluded that the Commission's contributions up to that point exceeded 50 % of the costs of the project thus far. The audit also revealed that the cost statement submitted by another participant to the project had been signed, irregularly, by the defendant.
   On 25 January 2002 the defendant submitted additional cost statements for the period between 1 December 1999 and 30 November 2000.
   The Commission carried out two independent technical reviews of the project and exchanged correspondence with the defendant on the findings of the audit and those two reviews and the concerns they raised. Following that, the Commission issued a debit note to the defendant, requiring reimbursement of the amount of 161 953,99 EUR, being the difference between the total costs of 240 463,01, accepted by the Commission and the total amount the Commission had previously paid to the defendant.
   By its action the Commission seeks repayment of the abovementioned amount, together with interest thereon, in accordance with the law of Ireland, which is applicable to the contract.

      (1)  Decision of the Council no 94/804/CE, of 23 November 1994, JO L 334 p. 59.


title: Case T-154/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014  — ANKO v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/46

         Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-154/14)
   2014/C 175/63
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare that the entire amount of EUR 185 664,10 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the OASIS project and the entire amount of EUR 465 062,84 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs;

               —

               Declare that the amount of EUR 1 824,05 which the Commission has not paid in respect of the OASIS project and the amount of EUR 637 117,17 which the Commission has not paid as a portion in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs and consequently the Commission is under an obligation to pay those sums to ΑΝΚΟ, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 215 754 and (b) 215 952 for the performance of the (a) OASIS and (b) PERFORM projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.
   In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs and refused to pay its outstanding portion. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection as constituting ineligible costs of almost all of the Commission’s portion in respect of the OASIS and PERFORM projects is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover almost all of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.


title: Case C-85/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux (Request for a preliminary ruling — Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Articles 3, 9 and 32 — National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the effects of winding-up proceedings — Legislative measure prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux
   (Case C-85/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions - Directive 2001/24/EC - Articles 3, 9 and 32 - National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the effects of winding-up proceedings - Legislative measure prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium)
   2013/C 367/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf

      Defendants: Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Articles 3, 9 and 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15) — Authorities authorised to adopt reorganisation and winding up measures for credit institutions — Administrative or judicial authorities — Permissibility of measures stemming directly from a law of a Member State of the EEA — Law applicable to proceedings concerning assets of a credit institution situated in a Member State — Effects on the application, in a Member State, of a legislative measure of another Member State, prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium, in the case of interim protective measures adopted prior to the declaration of the moratorium

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions must be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial institution, such as those based on the transitional provisions in point II of Law No 44/2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by an administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles of Directive 2001/24, where those transitional provisions take effect only by means of judicial decisions granting a moratorium to a credit institution.

               2.

               Article 32 of Directive 2001/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, as Article 98 of Law No 161/2002 on financial institutions, as amended by Law No 129/2008 of 13 November 2008, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial institution once it benefitted from a moratorium, from being effective in regard to interim protective measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in another Member State before the declaration of the moratorium.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case T-97/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (Shade of orange) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of orange — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (Shade of orange)
   (Case T-97/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 301/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: KUKA Roboter GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn and B. Hannemann, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 December 2007 (Case R 1572/2007-4), concerning an application for registration of a shade of orange as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders KUKA Roboter GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-241/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Secția penală și de minori (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Secția penală și de minori (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi
   (Case C-241/15)
   (2015/C 245/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj — Secția penală și de minori

      Party to the main proceedings

   Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

      Questions referred

               1)

               For the purposes of the application of Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision [2002/584/JHA] (1), must the expression ‘the existence of an ... arrest warrant’ be understood to refer to a national — domestic — arrest warrant issued in accordance with the criminal procedural rules of the issuing Member State, and therefore distinct from the European arrest warrant?

               2)

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the non-existence of a national — domestic — arrest warrant constitute an implied reason for non-execution of the European arrest warrant?

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


title: Case T-504/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mologen v OHIM (dSLIM) (Community trade mark — Partial refusal to register — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mologen v OHIM (dSLIM)
   (Case T-504/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial refusal to register - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 220/67
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mologen AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Klages, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1077/2007-4) concerning an application for the registration of the word mark ‘dSLIM’ as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no further need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — J. van der Weerd, Maatschap Van der Bijl, J.W. Schoonhoven (C-222/05), H. de Rooy, sen., H. de Rooy, jun. (C-223/05), Maatschap H. en J. van 't Oever, Maatschap F. van 't Oever en W. Fien, B. van 't Oever, Maatschap A. en J. Fien, Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf, H. Koers, Maatschap K. en G. Polinder, G. van Wijhe (C-224/05), B.J. van Middendorp (C-225/05) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Directive 85/511/EEC — National court raising Community law of its own motion — Procedural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — J. van der Weerd, Maatschap Van der Bijl, J.W. Schoonhoven (C-222/05), H. de Rooy, sen., H. de Rooy, jun. (C-223/05), Maatschap H. en J. van 't Oever, Maatschap F. van 't Oever en W. Fien, B. van 't Oever, Maatschap A. en J. Fien, Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf, H. Koers, Maatschap K. en G. Polinder, G. van Wijhe (C-224/05), B.J. van Middendorp (C-225/05) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05) (1)

   (Agriculture - Control of foot-and-mouth disease - Directive 85/511/EEC - National court raising Community law of its own motion - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   (2007/C 170/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: J. van der Weerd, Maatschap Van der Bijl, J.W. Schoonhoven (C-222/05), H. de Rooy, sen., H. de Rooy, jun. (C-223/05), Maatschap H. en J. van 't Oever, Maatschap F. van 't Oever en W. Fien, B. van 't Oever, Maatschap A. en J. Fien, Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf, H. Koers, Maatschap K. en G. Polinder, G. van Wijhe (C-224/05), B.J. van Middendorp (C-225/05)

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11) — First Indent of Article 11(1) and second indent of Article 13(1) and Annex B — Direct effect — Laboratory not mentioned in Annex B — Margin of discretion of the national authorities
   Operative part of the judgment
   Community law does not require the national court, in an action of the kind which forms the basis of the main proceedings, to raise of its own motion a plea alleging infringement of the provisions of Community legislation, since neither the principle of equivalence nor the principle of effectiveness require it to do so.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case T-468/12: Action brought on 16 October 2012 — Wojciech Gęsina Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/22

         Action brought on 16 October 2012 — Wojciech Gęsina Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission
   (Case T-468/12)
   2013/C 71/35
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Wojciech Gęsina Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, legal adviser)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2012 of 19 June 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea concerns adoption of the contested regulation by the Commission in breach of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) in particular through an incorrect interpretation of the explanatory notes to heading CN 9505, which finds expression in the determination that, as the decorative article does not contain any festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, it has not been exclusively designed and manufactured as a festive article and is not recognised as such.
               In the applicant’s view, the content of heading CN 9505 and of the explanatory notes thereto shows that, in order for an article to be recognised as a festive article, it does not need to have specific imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions directly referring to a particular festivity.
               The question whether an article is exclusively designed, manufactured and recognised as a festive article must be assessed in the light of the festivity-related symbolism attaching to a given article in a Member State and of the article’s connection with the festive tradition and culture in that State. Where such an article is recognisable in a given cultural circle as a festive article, it need not (but can) have additional symbols ornaments or inscriptions underlining its connection with a particular festivity.

               2.

               The second plea concerns adoption of the contested regulation by the Commission in breach of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) concerning heading CN 9505, through an incorrect interpretation of the notes which consists in the determination that, as the decorative article does not contain any festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, it has not been exclusively designed and manufactured as a festive article and is not recognised as such.
               The Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature clearly indicate that products classified under heading CN 9505 are according to their construction and design (imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions) intended to be used for a specific festivity. The words in brackets define merely by way of example what a product’s ‘construction and design’ might cover. In other words, the Combined Nomenclature does not exclude the situation where a product (as such) is a symbol of specific festivities in a particular cultural circle although the product does not bear any imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions.

               3.

               The third plea concerns breach by the Commission of the principle of equal treatment by acceptance of a situation in which one category of products (artificial flowers and plants used for a festivity) is denied classification as festive articles because of a lack of festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, whereas other categories are so classified under heading CN 9505 even though the articles do not have such festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions.
               In the course of trade in the European Union, binding tariff information issued by individual Member States exists that specifies classification under heading CN 9505 for articles (including artificial flowers) which do not bear particular symbols, designs or ornaments. This confirms that an article in itself, without inscriptions or ornaments, can be a symbol of specific festivities in the cultural circle of a particular Member State and is accordingly recognised, designed and manufactured there as a festive article.
               Neither the notes on Chapter 95 of the Combined Nomenclature nor the commentary in the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature show that, in order for a product to acquire the status of a festive article, it must be recognised as festive throughout the European Union. Such an interpretation of ‘festive article’ would lead to a situation where only a few products would meet these criteria. More than 500 million citizens with different traditions and cultures and differing faiths live in the European Union. Therefore, not only is there no common festive tradition in the European Union but also the list of holidays in individual Member States differs. Finally, some products directly classified under heading 9505 are festive in nature only in some Member States and the corresponding tradition is not known, or is not very popular, in the other Member States.

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2008 C 133, p. 1.


title: Case C-250/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(b) — Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation — Fuel provided by a person chartering out an aircraft used by charterers of the aircraft for their flights for purposes other than the supply of air services for consideration)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-250/10) (1)

   (Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(b) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation - Fuel provided by a person chartering out an aircraft used by charterers of the aircraft for their flights for purposes other than the supply of air services for consideration)
   2012/C 49/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Scope of the exemption envisaged for energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation — Exemption of fuel provided by an entity — which is not an airline — leasing or chartering out an aircraft used by lessees of the aircraft for their flights for commercial purposes

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption on energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than in private pleasure-flying provided for under that provision cannot apply in the case of a company, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, where it leases or charters out an aircraft belonging to it with the fuel to undertakings whose air navigation operations are not directly used for the supply, by those undertakings, of air services for consideration.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case T-644/13: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2014  — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/38

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2014 — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission
   (Case T-644/13) (1)

   2014/C 194/54
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-448/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2006 — Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/38

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2006 — Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-448/06)
   (2006/C 326/80)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Question referred
   Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 (1) amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (2) void on account of a breach of higher-ranking Community law (Articles 1(1) and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 (3)), in so far as application of an injection solution as a pharmaceutical form is excluded by virtue of the note marked (*) against the listing of progesterone in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3.