title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2000 in Case C-332/98: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Aid for the Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF))

text:
C 302/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
No 1/80, of 19 September 1980, on the development of the                     before that court against Giancarlo Fornasar, Andrea Strizzolo,
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by               Giancarlo Toso, Lucio Mucchino, Enzo Peressutti and Sante
the Association Agreement between the European Economic                      Chiarcosso, — on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council
Community and Turkey — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-                     Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1994, on hazardous
sed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second                   waste (CJ 1991 L 377 p. 20) and Council Decision 94/904/EC
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kap-               of 22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
teyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges; A. La                  pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 (OJ 1994 L 356,
Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               p. 14) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schint-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in                  gen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President
which it has ruled:                                                          of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                                                                             (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: G. Cosmos; Registrar:
The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1180, of 19 Sep-             L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 June
tember 1980, on the development of the Association, adopted by the           2000, in which it has ruled:
Association Council established by the Association Agreement
between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be                   1.    Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
interpreted as covering the situation of a Turkish national who, like              hazardous waste does not prevent the Member States, including,
the applicant in the main proceedings, was authorised in her capacity              for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts, from classifying
as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the              as hazardous waste other than that featuring on the list of
labour force of the host Member State to join that worker there, in                hazardous waste laid down by Council Decision 94/904/EC of
circumstances where that spouse, having divorced before the expiry of              22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
the three-year qualification period laid down in the first indent of               pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689, and
that provision, still continued in fact to live uninterruptedly with her           thus from adopting more stringent protective measures in order
former spouse until the date on which the two former spouses                       to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal
remarried. Such a Turkish national must therefore be regarded as                   of such waste. If they do so, it is for the authorities of the
legally resident in that Member State within the meaning of that                   Member State concerned which have competence under national
provision, so that she may rely directly on her right, after three years,          law to notify the Commission of such cases in accordance with
to respond to any offer of employment, and, after five years, to enjoy             the second indent of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689.
free access to any paid employment of her choice.
                                                                             2.    Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 must
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that it is not a necessary precondition
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.                                                          for waste to be classified, in a specific case, as hazardous, that
                                                                                its origin be determined.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 22 June 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-318/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               (Fifth Chamber)
the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di
Cividale del Friuli, Italy): Criminal proceedings v Giancar-                                            of 22 June 2000
                      lo Fornasar and Others (1)
                                                                             in Case C-332/98: French Republic v Commission of the
(Waste — Definition of hazardous waste — Directive                                               European Communities (1)
91/689/EEC — Decision 94/904/EC — More stringent
                        measures of protection)
                                                                             (Aid for the Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre Français
                                                                                (CELF))
                            (2000/C 302/03)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/04)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-318/98: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura
Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del                   In Case C-332/98: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
Friuli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings          and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 302/3
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for the annulment of Com-                  Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
mission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning                    21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
State aid in favour of Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre                  relating to trade marks cannot be interpreted as meaning that where
Français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     —     a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                     se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it:                   —     a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark,
                                                                                uses, in the course of trade in goods or services which are
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered, a sign which so closely corresponds to the mark as to
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               give rise to the possibility of its being associated with that mark,
                                                                           the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of
                                                                           the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to
                                                                           confusion cannot be ruled out.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 22 June 2000
in Case C-425/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Marca Mode CV v
               Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV (1)
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Trade marks
— Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association                      in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             between the sign and the trade mark)                                             ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                          (2000/C 302/05)
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with
                                                                            the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-425/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                       in the European Court Reports)
court between Marca Mode CV and Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux
BV — on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                    In Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                  (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and A.M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese
1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                     Republic (Agents: J. Mota de Campos, L. Fernandes and
of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                    M.L. Duarte) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                   cancel and recover, within the prescribed period, the aid from
F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs; Advocate General; H. von                  which EPAC — Empresa para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it has ruled:                           its obligations under Commission Decision 97/762/EC of


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden of 22 April 1998 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against V.O.F. Coffeeshop 'Siberië' (Case C-158/98)

text:
C 209/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.7.98
of the European Communities in Case T-105/96 between                 Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
Pharos SA and Commission of the European Communities                     Commission was entitled to seek a further opinion
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  from the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Communities on 17 April 1998 by Pharos SA, represented                   Products: the procedure provided for by Articles 6 and
by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                8 of the regulation is clear, precise and unconditional.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     It examines all possible situations exhaustively and
Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                   leaves the Commission no room to act otherwise than
                                                                         as laid down by the regulation.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
Ð set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
    Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    of 17 February 1998 in Case T-105/96 between Pharos
    SA and the Commission of the European
    Communities;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                     Nederlanden of 22 April 1998 in the case of
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
and
                                                                                SiberieÈ'
                                                                                (Case C-158/98)
Ð declare that the case should proceed to judgment and
    give judgment for the applicant in the terms sought by                                    (98/C 209/43)
    it at first instance, that is to say:
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Ð declare that, in breach of its obligations, the                European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
         Commission failed to pursue the procedure for the           der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
         inclusion of somatosalm produced by the applicant           22 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 April
         in the list of substances not subject to an MRL in          1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
         Annex II of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (1),                Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
                                                                     SiberieÈ', on the following question:
    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant
         damages provisionally estimated at BFR 512                  Must Article 2 of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)
         million or, at least, and again provisionally, at BFR       therefore be interpreted as meaning that no liability to
         353 million,                                                turnover tax arises in respect of a person who, for
                                                                     consideration, offers another person the opportunity to
    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs both of the               deal in cannabis products?
         proceedings before the Court of First Instance and
         of those before the Court of Justice;                       (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
or
    Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
         so that it can give judgment.                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                     Giudice di Pace di Genova, by order of that court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  28 March 1998 in the case of Eridania SpA against
                                                                                Azienda Agricola San Luca
                                                                                (Case C-160/98)
Errors in law as regards
                                                                                (98/C 209/44)
Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
    Commission did not breach the principles of legal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    certainty and legitimate expectations in not proposing           European Communities by order of 28 March 1998 of the
    measures to the Council as required by Article 8(3)(b)           Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova, received at the
    of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 for 11                    Court Registry on 22 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    months because the expression without delay' used in            in the case of Eridania SpA v. Azienda Agricola San Luca
    that regulation allowed it a certain margin for                 on the following questions:
    manoeuvre': both the expressions used in the various
    language versions and the general scheme of the                  1. Is Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997 (1), in
    regulation support the view that the Commission has                  particular Article 1(f) thereof, valid, especially in the
    no deadline by which it must propose measures to the                 light of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC)
    Council regarding a new pharmacologically active                     No 1785/81 (2) and Article 190 of the EC Treaty?
    substance which, as such, does not benefit from the
    provisional authorisation provided for in Article 14 of          2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
    the regulation,                                                      is Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981, as


title: Case F-24/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/51

         Action brought on 13 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-24/16)
   (2016/C 251/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for the defendant to provide the applicant with the revised calculation of the latter’s financial entitlements following his resignation from the Commission in 2000.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 15 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-544/12: Action brought on 14 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (PENSA PHARMA)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/18

         Action brought on 14 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (PENSA PHARMA)
   (Case T-544/12)
   2013/C 55/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pensa Pharma, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz and M. González Gordon, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring A/S (Vanlose, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2012 in case R 1883/2011-5; and

               —

               Order the defendant and if the case might be, the interveners, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the appeal incurred within the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PENSA PHARMA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 4954831

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The requests for a declaration of invalidity were based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) and Article 53(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on the Benelux trade mark registration No 377513 of the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Accepted the request for a declaration of invalidity against the CTM for all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

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


title: Case C-206/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha) v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha) v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-206/08)
   (2008/C 247/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Thüringer Oberlandesgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha)

      Respondent: Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a contract for the supply of services (here, the supply of water and treatment of waste water), the content of which does not provide for the contracting authority to make a direct payment of consideration to the supplier but for the supplier to be afforded the right to collect consideration under private law from third parties, to be classified for that reason alone as a service concession within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), as distinct from a service contract for pecuniary interest within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2004/17?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, does a contract of the kind described in the first question constitute a service concession if the risk connected with operating the service in question, because of the rules of public law governing it (compulsory connection and usage; prices calculated on a break-even basis), is significantly limited from the outset — that is to say, even if the contracting authority were to provide the service itself — but the supplier assumes that limited risk in full or at least to a predominant extent?

               3.

               If the second question is also answered in the negative, is Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17 to be interpreted as meaning that the degree of risk connected with operating the service, particularly the marketing risk, must in qualitative terms be comparable to that which normally exists under conditions in a free market with more than one competing tenderer?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


title: Case F-2/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS — Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of origin — Place of recruitment — Change in the place of residence — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission
   (Case F-2/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS - Installation allowance - Daily subsistence allowance - Place of origin - Place of recruitment - Change in the place of residence - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2016/C 156/76)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gergő Pasqualetti (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Véghely, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and T. S. Bohr, acting as Agents, and subsequently by T. S. Bohr, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance and application seeking an order that the Commission pay him those allowances together with interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014, by which it refused to grant Mr Pasqualetti entitlement to the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance, provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Pasqualetti, in accordance with the rules in the Staff Regulations as currently in force, the allowances referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part, together with default interest, from the dates on which they became payable respectively until the date of actual payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr Pasqualetti.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23/3/2015, p. 25.


title: Case C-215/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd
   (Case C-215/14)
   2014/C 235/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (England and Wales)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société de Produits Nestlé SA

      Defendant: Cadbury UK Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1), is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trade marks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods?

               2.

               Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(l)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC?

               3.

               Should Article 3(l)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC be interpreted as precluding registration of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result with regard to the manner in which the goods are manufactured as opposed to the manner in which the goods function?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks

      OJ L 299, p. 25


title: Case F-139/12: Action brought on 14 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/76

         Action brought on 14 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-139/12)
   2013/C 26/158
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant in the list of persons who have passed the tests at the end of the training programme which is part of the certification procedure and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested measure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 as compensation for the damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-351/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez v Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC — Reconciliation of professional and family life — Return from maternity leave of a worker member — Request for a reduction of working hours and for a change in work pattern — Situation which does not fall within the scope of Clause 6(1) of the revised Framework Agreement — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez v Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana
   (Case C-351/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC - Reconciliation of professional and family life - Return from maternity leave of a worker member - Request for a reduction of working hours and for a change in work pattern - Situation which does not fall within the scope of Clause 6(1) of the revised Framework Agreement - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))
   (2016/C 305/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez

      Defendant: Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana

      Operative part of the judgment

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Social Court No 33, Barcelona, Spain) is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case T-393/13: Action brought on 1 August 2013 — SolarWorld and Solsonica v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/21

         Action brought on 1 August 2013 — SolarWorld and Solsonica v Commission
   (Case T-393/13)
   2013/C 274/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) and Solsonica SpA (Cittaducale, Italy) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 (1) to the extent it delays until 6 August 2013 the application of the full provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules, cells and wafers originating in or consigned from China;

               —

               Order the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the anti-dumping duty rates set out in Article 1(2)(ii) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 as from 6 June 2013;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicants damages to the extent the antidumping duty rates set out in Article 1(2)(ii) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 have not been applied as from 6 June 2013; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the adoption of Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 infringes Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts when introducing the phasing-in period of the provisional anti-dumping measures by virtue of Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly and seriously violated its duties of care and good administration by adopting Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted unlawfully by adopting Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 and thereby caused damage to the applicants for which the EU is liable under Article 340(2) of the TFEU

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case C-162/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 — Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 30 — Commission decision finding an illegal cartel on the European hydrogen peroxide and perborate market — Publication of an extended non-confidential version of that decision — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information — Terms of reference of the hearing officer — Decision 2011/695/EU — Article 8 — Confidentiality — Protection of professional secrecy — Article 339 TFEU — Concept of ‘business secrets or other confidential information’ — Information from a request for leniency — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment — Legitimate expectation)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 — Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-162/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 30 - Commission decision finding an illegal cartel on the European hydrogen peroxide and perborate market - Publication of an extended non-confidential version of that decision - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information - Terms of reference of the hearing officer - Decision 2011/695/EU - Article 8 - Confidentiality - Protection of professional secrecy - Article 339 TFEU - Concept of ‘business secrets or other confidential information’ - Information from a request for leniency - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment - Legitimate expectation))
   (2017/C 151/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (represented by: C. Steinle, C. von Köckritz and A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, M. Kellerbauer and F. van Schaik, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 January 2015, Evonik Degussa v Commission (T-341/12, EU:T:2015:51) in so far as by that judgment the General Court held that the hearing officer was correct to decline competence to answer the objections, raised by Evonik Degussa GmbH on the basis of the observance of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, to the proposed publication of a detailed, non-confidential version of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB, Eka Chemicals AB, Degussa AG, Edison SpA, FMC Corporation, FMC Foret SA, Kemira OYJ, L’Air Liquide SA, Chemoxal SA, Snia SpA, Caffaro Srl, Solvay SA/NV, Solvay Solexis SpA, Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA and Arkema SA (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate);

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012, rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Evonik Degussa GmbH in so far as, by that decision, the hearing officer declined competence to answer the objections referred to in point 1 of the operative part of this judgment;

               4.

               Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2001 in Case T-146/00 Stefan Ruf and Martin Stier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Payment of the application fee after expiry of the time-limit of one month from filing of the application for registration — Lapse of the right to be accorded as a filing date the date when the application was lodged — Conditions for restitutio in integrum)

text:
C 259/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.9.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 20 June 2001                                                            of 27 June 2001
in Case T-146/00 Stefan Ruf and Martin Stier v Office for                 in Case T-214/00: X v Commission of the European
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                               Communities (1)
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Official ordered to pay costs of earlier proceed-
(Community trade mark — Payment of the application fee                    ings — Part of salary withheld by the creditor institution by
after expiry of the time-limit of one month from filing of the                                   way of compensation)
application for registration — Lapse of the right to be
accorded as a filing date the date when the application was
        lodged — Conditions for restitutio in integrum)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/16)
                         (2001/C 259/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-214/00: X, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, residing in Dalheim (Luxembourg),
                                                                          represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
In Case T-146/00 Stefan Ruf, of Ettlingen (Germany), Martin               service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Stier, of Pfinztal (Germany), represented by V. Spitz, A.N. Klin-         Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) —
ger and A. Gaul, lawyers, with an address for service in                  application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal              to withhold part of the applicant’s monthly salary amounting
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von                   to LUF 120 000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and E. Joly) — action against the                 Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for                   and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     27 June 2001, in which it:
Designs) of 28 March 2000 (Case R 198/1998-1) dismissing
the applicants’ request for their rights to be re-established by
according their application for registration a filing date of the         1.    Annulled the Commission’s decision to withhold part of the
date when the application was lodged with the Office — the                      applicant’s monthly salary amounting to LUF 120 000.
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                          2.    Ordered the Commission to repay to the applicant the sum
a judgment on 20 June 2001, in which it:
                                                                                corresponding to two deductions from salary of LUF 60 000,
                                                                                together with interest at the rate of 6.5 % per annum, with
                                                                                effect from the date on which those amounts were withheld and
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                     until actual repayment.
2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                             3.    Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.00.                                                  (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 1999 in Case C-337/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissie van Beroep Studiefinanciering): C.P.M. Meeusen v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Free movement of persons - Concept of 'worker' - Freedom of establishment - Study finance - Discrimination on the ground of nationality - Residence requirement)

text:
7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 226/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. The fact that a person is related by marriage to the director and
                                                                                sole shareholder of the company for which he pursues an effective
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                        and genuine activity does not preclude that person from being
                                                                                classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 48 of the
                                                                                EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and of
                           of 8 June 1999                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
                                                                                1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Com-
in Case C-337/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        munity, so long as he pursues his activity in the context of a
the Commissie van Beroep Studiefinanciering): C.P.M.                             relationship of subordination;
Meeusen v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer
                              Groep (1)
                                                                             2. The dependent child of a national of one Member State who
(Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Free movement of persons                          pursues an activity as an employed person in another Member
— Concept of ‘worker’ — Freedom of establishment — Study                         State while maintaining his residence in the State of which he is
finance — Discrimination on the ground of nationality —                          a national can rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68
                      Residence requirement)                                     in order to obtain study finance under the same conditions as are
                                                                                applicable to children of nationals of the State of employment,
                          (1999/C 226/01)                                        and in particular without any further requirement as to the child’s
                                                                                place of residence;
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             3. The dependent child of a national of one Member State who
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           pursues an activity as a self-employed person in another Member
                   in the European Court Reports)                                State while maintaining his residence in the State of which he is
                                                                                a national can obtain study finance under the same conditions as
                                                                                are applicable to children of nationals of the State of establish-
In Case C-337/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                       ment, and in particular without any further requirement as to the
EC (ex Article 177, from the Commissie van Beroep Studiefin-                     child’s place of residence.
anciering (Study Finance Tribunal) (Netherlands) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between C.P.M. Meeusen and Hoofddirectie van de Informatie
Beheer Groep — on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 52
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and
43 EC) and of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of                    (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
1968 (II), p. 475) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Ed-
ward, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 8 June 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-26/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 95/30/EC)

text:
C 63/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.3.2000
    by not transposing those directives with regard to mutual societies    2. The derogation laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive
    governed by the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has              79/7/EEC is not applicable to a benefit such as that paid under
    failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under             Regulations 2(5), 2(6) and 3(1) of the Social Fund Winter Fuel
    those directives;                                                          Payment Regulations 1998.
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (Third Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                        of 16 December 1999
                       of 16 December 1999                                 in Case C-26/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
in Case C-382/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Sec-                                       to transpose Directive 95/30/EC)
retary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry
                               Taylor (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/11)
(Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women
in matters of social security — Grant of a winter fuel                                         (Language of the case: French)
             payment — Link with pensionable age)
                           (2000/C 63/10)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: English)                        In Case C-26/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of
In Case C-382/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              Luxembourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declar-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court                     ation that, by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission
of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
(Divisional Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling               to comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                   1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
Queen and Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John           90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related
Henry Taylor — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 7(1)(a)             to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual
of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the                   Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment             89/391/EEC) (OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41), the Grand Duchy of
for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6,              Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
p. 24) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintg-               EC Treaty — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
en, President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm                 Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for                 on 16 December 1999, in which it:
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                        1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
                                                                               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
1. Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                   comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
    1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal           adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
    treatment for men and women in matters of social security must             on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
    be interpreted as meaning that a winter fuel payment, such as              biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
    that made under Regulations 2(5), 2(6) and 3(1) of the Social              meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Grand
    Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 1998, is covered by that              Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    directive.                                                                 Article 2(1) of that Directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 63/7
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                                                                           in Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 96/43/EC)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 December 1999                                                              (2000/C 63/13)
in Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 94/33/EC — Failure to transpose within the                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          prescribed period)                                                    in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 63/12)                                 In Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                                                                           V. Kontolaimos and D. Tsagkaraki), application for a declar-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        ation that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing
                    in the European Court Reports)                         of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
                                                                           certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC
In Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communities                    and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Hellenic Republic
(Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing             under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed
to adopt, or by failing to communicate to the Commission,                  of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and adminis-            and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
trative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December
94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people                 1999, in which it:
at work (OJ 1994 L 216, p. 12), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
Treaty and under the said directive — the Court (Fifth                         laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                         comply with the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                   of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in                        ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
which it:                                                                      animals and certain animal products and amending Directives
                                                                               90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all         to fulfil its obligations under that article;
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on
     the protection of young people at work, the Grand Duchy of            2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;                                                            3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: Case C-617/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 18 December 2012 — Astrazeneca AB v Comptroller-General of Patents

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 18 December 2012 — Astrazeneca AB v Comptroller-General of Patents
   (Case C-617/12)
   2013/C 86/15
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Patents Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astrazeneca AB

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Swiss marketing authorisation not granted pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC (1), but automatically recognised by Liechtenstein, capable of constituting the ‘first authorisation to place the product on the market’ for the purposes of Article 13(1) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (2)?

               2.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to the first question if:

                           (a)

                           the set of clinical data upon which the Swiss authority granted the marketing authorisation was considered by the European Medicines Agency as not satisfying the conditions for the grant of a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation 726/2004/EC (3); and/or

                           (b)

                           the Swiss marketing authorisation was suspended after grant and was only reinstated following the submission of additional data?

               3.

               If Article 13(1) of Regulation 469/2009 refers solely to marketing authorisations granted pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC, does the fact that a medicinal product was first placed on the market within the EEA pursuant to a Swiss marketing authorisation automatically recognised in Liechtenstein which was not granted pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC render that product ineligible for the grant of a supplementary protection certificate pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation 469/2009?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
   OJ L 311, p. 67

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
   OJ L 152, p. 1

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency
   OJ L 136, p. 1


title: Case T-319/13: Action brought on 11 June 2013 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/12

         Action brought on 11 June 2013 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council
   (Case T-319/13)
   2013/C 245/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ahmed Alaeldin Amin Abdelmaksoud Elmaghraby (Cairo, Egypt) and Naglaa Abdallah El Gazaerly (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, as far as it concerns the applicants, Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54);

               —

               Erase the allegations that each applicant is responsible for the misappropriation of State funds and subject to judicial investigation in Egypt; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including either of the applicants in the 2013 Measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that the listing criterion was fulfilled as regards either of the applicants, as far as there is no legal or factual basis for their designation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated its data protection obligations according to the Data Protection Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1) and to the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (2).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights to defence and to effective judicial review.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.

      (2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.


title: Case C-389/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that Court of 16 October 2002 in the case of Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft e. G. against Hauptzollamt Kiel

text:
25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 19/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                       company law offences concerning the infringement of the
Hamburg by order of that Court of 16 October 2002 in                          obligations imposed in order to safeguard the principle of
the case of Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft                           public and accurate information on companies, lays
                 e. G. against Hauptzollamt Kiel                              down a sanctionative system which in the specific
                                                                              instance is not informed by the criteria of effectiveness,
                                                                              proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions
                          (Case C-389/02)
                                                                              imposed in order to ensure that that principle is upheld?
                           (2003/C 19/20)
                                                                         2.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-                       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                                                                              fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
burg (Finance Court, Hamburg) of 16 October 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 5 November 2002, for a preliminary                   by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
                                                                              as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
ruling in the case of Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft
e. G. against Hauptzollamt Kiel on the following question:                    Member State which does not make it a punishable
                                                                              offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                                                                              disclosure and the provisions of accurate information on
Does sailing in Community waters in craft for other than                      certain company documents (including the balance sheet
private non-commercial purposes constitute navigation within                  and the profit and loss account) where the disclosure
the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive            of false company accounts or the failure to provide
92/81 (1)?                                                                    information result in a distortion of the financial results
                                                                              for a given period, or a distortion in the net assets, which
                                                                              does not exceed a certain percentage threshold?
( 1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.
                                                                         3.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
                                                                              of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
                                                                              (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                                                                              fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                    by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
                                                                              as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
di Lecce — Sezione penale by order of that Court of
7 October 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Sergio                     Member State which does not make it a punishable
                                                                              offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                               Adelchi
                                                                              disclosure and the provision of accurate information
                                                                              where statements are made which, although aimed at
                          (Case C-391/02)                                     deceiving members or the public with a view to securing
                                                                              an unjust profit, are the consequence of estimated
                                                                              valuations which, taken individually, depart from actual
                           (2003/C 19/21)
                                                                              values to an extent not greater than a certain threshold?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello di                 4.   Irrespective of progressive limits or thresholds, must
Lecce — Sezione penale (Court of Appeal, Lecce, Criminal                      those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g) of the
division) of 7 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on                EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
8 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                     (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
proceedings against Sergio Adelchi on the following questions:                fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
                                                                              by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
1.    With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt                as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
      ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established               Member State which does not make it a punishable
      by the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/                   offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
      EEC (1) and Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must the directives              disclosure and the provision of accurate information
      themselves and in particular the combined provisions of                 where the false statements or the fraudulent omissions
      Article 44(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of            and, thus, the disclosures and statements which do not
      the first directive (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2),            give a true and fair view of the company’s assets and
      (3) and (4) of the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC),             liabilities and financial position do not distort ‘to an
      as consolidated by Directive 83/349 ( 3) and Directive 90/              appreciable extent’ the company’s assets, liabilities and
      605 ( 4), be interpreted as meaning that that legislation               financial position (even though it is for the national
      precludes a law of a Member State which, in amending                    legislature to define the concept of ‘appreciable distor-
      the system of penalties already in force in respect of                  tion’?


title: NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 268 / 12      EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                             14 . 9 . 96
                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                        NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                     (96 /C 268 / 10 )
            The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of
            the European Communities No C 268 A of 14 September 1996 the following notice of open
            competition :
            English edition
            CJ/LA/ 18 (Lawyer-linguists of English mother-tongue)
            To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
            Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg .
            Closing date for application : 18 October 1996 .


               14.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/26

         Action brought on 2 December 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-8/09)
   2010/C 8/09
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 December 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter III of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 EEA;
               and

               2.

               the Republic of Iceland bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               the present case concerns the non-implementation of a directive on machinery,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received any information from Iceland indicating that the directive on machinery has been implemented into Icelandic law, nor is it in possession of any information on Iceland having taken necessary measures to ensure compliance with the directive,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not brought into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive.


title: Case C-84/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig by order of that Court of 26 February 2002 in the administrative law proceedings brought by Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against Bezirksregierung Braunschweig

text:
27.7.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               1.    Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of
richt Braunschweig by order of that Court of 26 February                     Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be inter-
2002 in the administrative law proceedings brought by                        preted as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the
Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against Bezirks-                              benefit on 1 January 1994 — also the taking up of
                    regierung Braunschweig                                   residence in Austria?
                          (Case C-84/02)
                                                                       2.    If so, are that provision and point C Germany (1) of
                        (2002/C 180/15)                                      Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible
                                                                             with higher-ranking European law, in particular the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                      EC in conjunction with Article 42 EC?
Braunschweig (Brunswick Administrative Court) of 26 Febru-
ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law proceedings         (1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
brought by Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against
Bezirksregierung Braunschweig on the following question:
Is Council Directive 92/27/EEC (1) of 31 March 1992 on the
labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package
leaflets (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 8) in conjunction with Council
Directive 65/65/EEC (2) of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
trative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ,         Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 against the judgment
English Special Edition, 1965-1966, p. 20) and the Second              delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,
Council Directive 75/319/EEC (3) of 20 May 1975 on the                 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99,
administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal prod-          T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between
ucts (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13) or, in the alternative, the principle      Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de
of the free movement of goods (Article 28 EC), to be                   Álava and Others and Commission of the European
interpreted in such a way that Community law precludes                                             Communities
national legislation which requires the package leaflets —
which in other respects comply with Community law ‘of old
medicinal products’, that is to say products on the market for                                   (Case C-183/02 P)
a long time but for which the post-marketing authorisation
procedure is still pending, to include the following notice:
‘Dieses Arzneimittel ist nach den gesetzlichen Übergangs-                                        (2002/C 180/17)
vorschriften im Verkehr. Die behördliche Prüfung auf pharma-
zeutische Qualität, Wirksamkeit und Unbedenklichkeit ist
noch nicht abgeschlossen.’ (‘This medicinal product is market-
ed in accordance with the statutory transitional provisions.           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002
Official verification of the product’s pharmaceutical quality,         by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
efficacy and safety has not yet been concluded.’)?                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                       T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 between Territorio His-
(1) OJ L 113 of 30.04.1992, p. 8.                                      tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and
(2) OJ P 022 of 09.02.1965, p. 369.                                    Commission of the European Communities was brought
(3) OJ L 147 of 09.06.1975, p. 13.                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       15 May 2002 by Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España
                                                                       SA (DEMESA), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                       Begoña Uriarte Valiente, Abogados, of calle Velázquez No 63,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Madrid.
gericht by order of that Court of 30 January 2002 in the
case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsan-
                        stalt Oberbayern
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-156/02)
                        (2002/C 180/16)                                1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                     6 March 2002;
(Federal Social Court) of 30 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in           3.    itself give final judgment in the matter on the basis of the
the case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsanstalt                appellant’s pleadings at first instance and, in particular,
Oberbayern (Regional Insurance Office for Oberbayern) on the                 annul Article 1(d) and Article 2 of the decision of the
following questions:                                                         Commission of 24 February 1999;


title: Case C-154/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 March 2017 — SIA ‘E LATS’

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 March 2017 — SIA ‘E LATS’
   (Case C-154/17)
   (2017/C 195/18)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SIA ‘E LATS’

      Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that used articles, acquired by a trader, that contain precious metals or precious stones (as in the present case) and are resold principally in order for those precious metals or precious stones to be extracted, may be regarded as second-hand goods?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is it relevant, for the purpose of limiting the application of the special arrangements, that the trader knows that the subsequent buyer intends to extract the precious metals or precious stones present in the used articles, or are the objective characteristics of the transaction (the quantity of goods, legal status of the counterparty to the transaction, etc.) relevant?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-316/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 289/28              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the defendant’s Second Board of               —     annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      Appeal of 11 July 2003 in Case R 266/2002-1 in its                        26 June 2003 in Case R 337/2002-4 relating to Com-
      entirety;                                                                 munity trade mark application 1 708 973 ‘MunichFinan-
                                                                                cialServices’ (word mark);
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘Rockbass’ — Appli-
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
applied for:                  cation No 2401123
Goods or services:            Goods in Classes 9, 15 and 18               Community trade mark          Word mark ‘MunichFinancial-
                              (inter alia, technical sound equip-         sought:                       Services’     —        Application
                              ment, musical instruments and                                             No 1 708 973
                              containers)
Decision appealed to the      Examiner’s refusal to register              Goods or services:            Services in Classes 36 (financial
Board of Appeal:                                                                                services)
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                     Decision appealed to the      Examiner’s refusal to register
Appeal:                                                                   Board of Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 —     infringement                 of       Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
                                    Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                          Appeal:
                                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —     infringement of the principle         Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of
                                    of examination of the facts                                         Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                    by the Office of its own
                                    motion        pursuant       to
                                    Article 74(1)(1) of Regu-
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —     infringement of essential
                                    procedural requirements.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 September 2003 by E-Sim Limited
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Münchener                                                   (Case T-325/03)
Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft                 Aktiengesellschaft
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                   (2003/C 289/60)
                        (Case T-316/03)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                        (2003/C 289/59)                                                           submitted: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   23 September 2003 by E-Sim Limited, represented by Dr
on 12 September 2003 by Münchener Rückversicherungs-                      Andreas Ebert-Weidenfeller. Druckhaus Remstal-Bote GmbH,
Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft, represented by G. Würtenber-             Waiblingen (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
ger and R. Kunze, lawyers.                                                before the Board of Appeal.


20150731012616642015/C 270/132562014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150611121211Case C-256/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) — Taxable amount — Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1210120150611EN0013121121Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-256/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) — Taxable amount — Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas)’2015/C 270/13Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 9(1) and 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of taxes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which is paid to municipalities by the company holding the gas distribution concession in return for the use of publicly-owned property belonging to those municipalities and which is then passed on by that company to another company responsible for marketing the gas, then by that company on to the final consumers, must be included in the taxable amount for value added tax applicable to the supply of services effected by the first company to the second company under Article 73 of that directive.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/2

         Election of the President of the Court of Justice
   2009/C 267/03
   At a meeting on 7 October 2009, the Judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities elected Mr Skouris as President of the Court for the period from 7 October 2009 to 6 October 2012, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure.


title: Case F-1/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Retirement on grounds of invalidity — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/86

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-1/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 225/198
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Henrik Andersen (Hals, Denmark) (represented by: S. Rodriguez. A. Blot and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy. N. Scafarto and B. Schäfer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to pay compensation for the loss purportedly suffered following the applicant’s retirement on grounds of invalidity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Andersen is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 29.


title: Case C-4/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 September 2006 — Jamal Ouariachi v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/21

         Order of the Court of 20 September 2006 — Jamal Ouariachi v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-4/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 294/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Jamal Ouariachi (represented by: F. Blanmailland, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Dintilhac and G. Boudot, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2005 in Case T-124/04 Ouariachi v Commission by which it dismissed, as being manifestly unfounded, the application brought by the present appellant for damages to compensate for the loss which he allegedly suffered as result of the alleged illegal conduct of a member of staff of the Commission delegation in Khartoum (Sudan)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Ouariachi is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.02.2006.


title: Case T-333/12: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Soltau v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Order of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Soltau v Commission
   (Case T-333/12) (1)

   2013/C 32/50
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.