title: Case T-249/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark KICO — Earlier national figurative mark and Community word mark KIKA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO)
   (Case T-249/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark KICO - Earlier national figurative mark and Community word mark KIKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 58/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Kitzinger, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Leipzig, Germany) and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: B. Krause and F. Cordt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2010 (Case R 1388/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and, on the other hand, Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-43/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Assane Samb

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Assane Samb
   (Case C-43/11) (1)

   2011/C 269/83
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case C-346/07: Action brought on 25 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/31

         Action brought on 25 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-346/07)
   (2007/C 211/60)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and P. Dejmek)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, or in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Hellenic Republic pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/50/EC into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 114.


title: Case T-97/08: Action brought on 20 February 2008 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (colour mark orange)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/37

         Action brought on 20 February 2008 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (colour mark orange)
   (Case T-97/08)
   (2008/C 107/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: KUKA Roboter GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by A. Kohn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 December 2007 in Case R 1572/2007-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The contourless colour mark orange for goods in Class 7 (Application No 4 607 801)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 28 EC as the contested decision constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has distinctive character

               —

               Infringement of Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94 as there is no or an insufficient statement of reasons for the contested decision and the facts have not been examined sufficiently

               —

               Misuse of powers as the defendant took extraneous considerations into account in its statement of reasons for the contested decision in respect of the requirement of availability.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


               25.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/16

         Call for applications — Director-General (Grades AD15-AD16) of the Library, Research and Documentation at the Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (2008/C 161/10)
   The post of Director-General (Grades AD15-AD16) of the Library, Research and Documentation at the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg will soon become vacant. This post will be filled by the application of Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.
   NATURE OF THE DUTIES
   Acting under the direct authority of the Registrar, the holder of the post will be responsible for running, co-ordinating and managing the Library, Research and Documentation Directorate-General.
   This Directorate-General, which has nearly 100 members of staff, has a large law library under the responsibility of a director and a team of researchers and documentalists currently grouped within four units, one of which is responsible for legal information technology. The team assists the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal in carrying out their judicial function, in particular by compiling studies and notes on comparative, international and Community law, and assists in disseminating case-law on Community law, in particular by means of legal and documentary analysis of the decisions of the Community courts. Those four research and documentation units are shortly to be grouped together within a single directorate under the responsibility of the Director-General.
   REQUIREMENTS
   Applicants must:

               —

               have completed legal studies attested by a university qualification and have a detailed knowledge of Community law,

               —

               demonstrate that they are able to direct and co-ordinate the work of a large administrative unit,

               —

               have detailed knowledge and professional experience of the sectors dealt with by the Directorate-General. Particular consideration will be given to experience in a role as director and manager of a legal research and documentation body,

               —

               have a thorough knowledge of one official language of the European Communities and a satisfactory knowledge of another official language of the European Communities. In the interests of the service, a good knowledge of French is necessary.

         SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS
   Applications for this post, by e-mail only, must reach the Court of Justice at the e-mail address: DG-BRD-CURIA@curia.europa.eu at the latest by 13.00 on 31 August 2008. Applications must be accompanied by a detailed curriculum vitae and any other appropriate documents.
   Luxembourg, 17 June 2008.


title: Case T-228/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Haverkamp v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/43

         Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Haverkamp v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern)
   (Case T-228/16)
   (2016/C 243/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reinhard Haverkamp (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the design ‘Pebble beach surface pattern’ — International registration designating the European Union No DM/072198-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 2619/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the invalidity proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-319/07 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23.4.2007 in Case T-30/03: Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/27

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23.4.2007 in Case T-30/03: Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-319/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: A. Bentley, Barrister and A. Worsøe, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 in Case T-30/03, Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan mark v Commission of the European Communities; and

               —

               declare the appellant's application in Case T-30/03 admissible; and

               —

               order that the Applicant's costs of bringing the present appeal be borne by the Commission in any event.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by relying on Case C-67/96, Albany to hold that the appellant could not rely on its own competitive position in the negotiation of collective agreements in order to establish that it was individually concerned.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the appellant could not rely on social aspects to establish that it was individually concerned.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance misapplied the Plaumann and ARE case-law by finding that the appellant cannot be regarded as individually concerned merely because the aid in question is passed to the recipients by means of a reduction in the wage claims of seafarers benefiting from the income tax exemption.

               4.

               The Court of First Instance misapplied the Van der Kooy and CIRFS case-law by finding that the appellant's own interest as a negotiator were not affected by fiscal measures.


title: Case T-309/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 July 2013 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission (Interim measures — Payment of contributions to an association governed by public law — State aid — Obligation to recover — Application to suspend enforcement — Urgency)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/42

         Order of the President of the General Court of 5 July 2013 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission
   (Case T-309/12 R)
   (Interim measures - Payment of contributions to an association governed by public law - State aid - Obligation to recover - Application to suspend enforcement - Urgency)
   2013/C 260/74
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Rivenich, Germany) (represented by: A. Kerkmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Saria Bio Industries AG & Co. KG (Selm, Germany); SecAnim GmbH (Lünen, Germany); and Knochen- und Fett-Union (KFU) GmbH (Selm) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Johann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision (2102/485/EU) of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/2010) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (OJ 2012 L 236, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-565/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Articles 3, 4 and 10 — Collection systems — Secondary or equivalent treatment — Treatment plants — Representative samples)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-565/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Collection systems - Secondary or equivalent treatment - Treatment plants - Representative samples)
   2012/C 295/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and M. Russo, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3, 4 and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not adopting the measures necessary in order to ensure that:

                           —

                           the agglomerations of Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Bianco, Castrovillari, Crotone, Santa Maria del Cedro, Lamezia Terme, Mesoraca, Montebello Ionico, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria, Rende, Rossano, Scalea, Sellia Marina, Soverato, Strongoli (Calabria), Cervignano del Friuli (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Frascati (Lazio), Porto Cesareo, Supersano, Taviano (Puglia), Misterbianco and others, Aci Catena, Adrano, Catania and others, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto and others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Acireale and others, Belpasso, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Agrigento and its outskirts, Porto Empedocle, Sciacca, Cefalù, Carini and ASI Palermo, Palermo and bordering areas, Santa Flavia, Augusta, Priolo Gargallo, Carlentini, Scoglitti, Marsala, Messina 1, Messina and Messina 6 (Sicily), the population equivalent of which is more than 15 000, and which discharge into receiving waters not considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008, are equipped with collecting systems for urban waste water, in accordance with Article 3 of that directive;

                           —

                           in the agglomerations of Lanciano-Castel Frentano (Abruzzo), Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Castrovillari, Crotone, Montebello Ionico, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria, Rossano (Calabria), Battipaglia, Benevento, Capaccio, Capri, Ischia, Casamicciola Terme, Forio, Massa Lubrense, Napoli Est, Vico Equense (Campania), Trieste-Muggia-San Dorligo (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Albenga, Borghetto Santo Spirito, Finale Ligure, Imperia, Santa Margherita Ligure, Quinto, Rapallo, Recco, Riva Ligure (Liguria), Casamassima, Casarano, Porto Cesareo, San Vito dei Normanni, Supersano (Puglia), Misterbianco and others, Scordia-Militello Val di Catania, Palagonia, Aci Catena, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto and others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Acireale and others, Belpasso, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Macchitella, Niscemi, Riesi, Agrigento and its outskirts, Favara, Palma di Montechiaro, Menfi, Porto Empedocle, Ribera, Sciacca, Bagheria, Cefalù, Carini and ASI Palermo, Misilmeri, Monreale, Santa Flavia, Termini Imerese, Trabia, Augusta, Avola, Carlentini, Ragusa, Scicli, Scoglitti, Campobello di Mazara, Castelvetrano 1, Triscina Marinella, Marsala, Mazara del Vallo, Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, Capo d’Orlando, Furnari, Giardini Naxos, Consortile Letojanni, Pace del Mela, Piraino, Roccalumera, Consortile Sant’Agata Militello, Consortile Torregrotta, Gioiosa Marea, Messina 1, Messina 6, Milazzo, Patti and Rometta (Sicily), the population equivalent of which is more than 15 000, and which discharge into receiving waters not considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, urban waste water entering collecting systems is subject to treatment in conformity with the provisions of Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive; and

                           —

                           the urban waste water treatment plants constructed in order to comply with the requirements of Article 4 to 7 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and in order that the treatment plants are designed so as to take into account seasonal variations of the load in the agglomerations of Lanciano-Castel Frentano (Abruzzo), Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Castrovillari, Crotone, Montebello Ionico, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria, Rossano (Calabria), Battipaglia, Benevento, Capaccio, Capri, Ischia, Casamicciola Terme, Forio, Massa Lubrense, Napoli Est, Vico Equense (Campania), Trieste-Muggia-San Dorligo (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Albenga, Borghetto Santo Spirito, Finale Ligure, Imperia, Santa Margherita Ligure, Quinto, Rapallo, Recco, Riva Ligure (Liguria), Casamassima, Casarano, Porto Cesareo, San Vito dei Normanni, Supersano (Puglia), Misterbianco and others, Scordia-Militello Val di Catania, Palagonia, Aci Catena, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto and others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Acireale and others, Belpasso, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Macchitella, Niscemi, Riesi, Agrigento and its outskirts, Favara, Palma di Montechiaro, Menfi, Porto Empedocle, Ribera, Sciacca, Bagheria, Cefalù, Carini and ASI Palermo, Misilmeri, Monreale, Santa Flavia, Termini Imerese, Trabia, Augusta, Avola, Carlentini, Ragusa, Scicli, Scoglitti, Campobello di Mazara, Castelvetrano 1, Triscina Marinella, Marsala, Mazara del Vallo, Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, Capo d’Orlando, Furnari, Giardini Naxos, Consortile Letojanni, Pace del Mela, Piraino, Roccalumera, Consortile Sant’Agata Militello, Consortile Torregrotta, Gioiosa Marea, Messina 1, Messina 6, Milazzo, Patti and Rometta (Sicily),

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4(1) and (3) and 10 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-156/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2009 — R v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Probationary officials — Probation report — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Time-limit for initiating proceedings — Lateness)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2009 — R v Commission
   (Case T-156/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Probationary officials - Probation report - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Time-limit for initiating proceedings - Lateness)
   2009/C 102/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: R (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Minatchy, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07 R v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, requesting that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders R to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission in the context of the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-508/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Folders)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/64

         Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Folders)
   (Case T-508/12)
   2013/C 26/126
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Automobile Association Ltd (St. Helier, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Walker, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Duncan Petersen Publishing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2012 in case R 172/2011-3, and remit the matter back to OHIM for reconsideration; and.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘folders’ — registered Community design No 1121404-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant requested the invalidity of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 62 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; and

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 3(a) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-106/09 P: Appeal brought on 18 March 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04: Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/22

         Appeal brought on 18 March 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04: Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-106/09 P)
   2009/C 141/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 December 2008, notified to the Commission on 5 January 2009, in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission;

               —

               reject the applications for annulment lodged by the Government of Gibraltar and by the United Kingdom; and

               —

               order the Governemnt of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom to pay the costs;
               alternatively,

               —

               refer the cases back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration; and

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission maintains that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               The Court of First Instance erred in assessing the relationship between Article 87(1) EC and the competence of the Member States in tax matters;

               The Court of First Instance erred in interpreting and applying Article 87(1) EC by imposing an unjustified constraint on the assessment of suspected State aid measures;

               The Court of First Instance erred in interpreting and applying Article 87(1) EC by imposing an unjustified constraint on the exercise of review powers in respect of the identification of a common or ‘normal’ tax system;

               The Court of First Instance erred in interpreting and applying Article 87(1) EC by considering that the common or ‘normal’ tax system may result from the application of different techniques to different taxpayers;

               The Court of First Instance erred in interpreting and applying Article 87(1) EC by considering that the Commission had failed to identify the common or ‘normal’ tax regime and to perform the required assessment to show the selective character of the measures at stake;

         The Court of First Instance erred in interpreting and applying Article 87(1) EC by failing to examine the three elements of selectivity identified in the contested decision.


title: Case T-282/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Bayer MaterialScience v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/34

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Bayer MaterialScience v Commission
   (Case T-282/14)
   2014/C 223/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayer MaterialScience AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU due to erroneous classification of the special compensation regime

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the opening decision infringes Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) did not constitute an allocation of State resources and the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users did not constitute a waiver of State resources.

                           —

                           The applicant states, in this context, that the Commission based its examination on new delimiting parameters which are incompatible with the principles of previous case-law. In particular, the Commission completely waived the criterion of the specific power of disposal of State authorities, which according to settled case-law is necessary for the classification as State resources, and deemed it to be sufficient for the State legislature to affect cash flows between private parties and for the compliance by the private parties with the legal requirements to be monitored by regulatory authorities.

                           —

                           In addition, the Commission is bound by its decision by which it did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources, and therefore erred in law by classifying the 2012 EEG as a new, unlawfully implemented aid scheme.

                           —

                           In addition, the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the 2012 EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 due to failure to propose appropriate measures

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that, when examining the 2012 EEG, the Commission should in any event have applied the procedure for existing aid in accordance with Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 17-19 of Regulation No 659/1999 and should have proposed appropriate measures to Germany before opening the formal investigation procedure instead of exposing market participants to considerable economic risks due to the classification of the 2012 EEG as new, non-notified aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard

                           —

                           The applicant argues also that the Commission should have consulted it in any event before adopting a decision with such serious legal effects.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Insufficient reasoning

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant claims that the opening decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in the essential passages.

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


title: Case C-6/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 53(2) — Award criteria — Most economically advantageous tender — Method of evaluation — Weighting rules — Obligation for the contracting authority to specify in the call for tenders the weighting of the award criteria — Scope of the obligation)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest
   (Case C-6/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 53(2) - Award criteria - Most economically advantageous tender - Method of evaluation - Weighting rules - Obligation for the contracting authority to specify in the call for tenders the weighting of the award criteria - Scope of the obligation))
   (2016/C 335/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TNS Dimarso NV

      Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment and of the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a public service contract to be awarded pursuant to the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender in the opinion of the contracting authority, that authority is not required to bring to the attention of potential tenderers, in the contract notice or the tender specifications relating to the contract at issue, the method of evaluation used by the contracting authority in order to specifically evaluate and rank the tenders. However, that method may not have the effect of altering the award criteria and their relative weighting.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-450/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Donaldson Filtration GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-396/11 ultra air GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/12

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Donaldson Filtration GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-396/11 ultra air GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-450/13 P)
   2013/C 313/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Donaldson Filtration GmbH (represented by: N. Siebertz, M. Teworte-Vey, and A. Revert, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), ultra air GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case T-396/11 and, consequently, dismiss the action brought by ultra air GmbH against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18 May 2011 in Case R 374/2010-4;

               —

               order ultra air GmbH to pay the appellant’s costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The main grounds of the appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court are as follows:

               1.

               Failure to assess the alleged abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law
               In the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed an error of law in failing to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice pursuant to which an abuse of rights, which is a generally applicable concept of law, which permits and requires an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case, must also be observed in relation to Community trade mark law. It claims that, on the contrary, the General Court limited itself to finding that the proceedings under Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) constitute a ‘Popularantrag’ (an administrative application which may be made by any legal person) and, thus, did not asses the specific circumstances of the case at issue.
               In doing so, the General Court failed to have regard to the fact that, although the legislature intended invalidity proceedings brought against a mark under Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be a ‘Popularantrag’, this does not preclude, however, consideration of the alleged abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law which is also to be observed under Community law.
               The exclusion of claims of an abuse of rights is not the same as the introduction of a requirement that positive evidence be furnished by the applicant for invalidity of a need for legal protection and, consequently, does not have the effect that the right to bring an action is limited by the adoption of addition requirements. Moreover, the fact that the legislature has made invalidity proceedings subject to application and that a court cannot declare a registered trade mark invalid of its own motion militate in favour of the interpretation that claims of an abuse of rights should be observed in the context of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               2.

               Failure to assess the specific circumstances of the individual case
               Since the General Court failed to recognise the objection of an abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law, the specific circumstances of the present case, which illustrate that ultra air GmbH abused its rights in seeking a declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘ultrafilter international’ (Community trade mark No 001121839), were not assessed.
               In using the sign at issue itself, the applicant for invalidity seeks to exploit for itself the notoriety of the mark in respect of which it seeks invalidity, by intentionally misleading the target public to believe that it was a traditional mark of the appellant’s renowned predecessor.
               Moreover, the General Court failed to assess to a sufficient degree the role of ultra air GmbH’s director as the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘ultrafilter international’ (Community trade mark No 001121839). While employed by the appellant he was personally responsible for the proceedings concerning the registration of the mark which he is now challenging. All of the documents to be submitted in registration proceedings as evidence of use of the contested mark in trade were produced by him personally and were, in part, even drafted by him and fell within his exclusive area of competence.

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


C 246/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/98 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-14/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 246/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/44)
By order of 4 June 1999, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-460/98 (reference for a preliminary          By order of 10 June 1999, the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sutterlüty GmbH &          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Co v Vorarlberger Landersregierung.                                 the register of Case C-14/99: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case C-247/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 184/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Protocol, the discharge into the            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
lake of the substances referred to in Article 6(1) is subject to                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
two, cumulative conditions: first, there must be a discharge
authorisation issued by the competent national authorities and,                                      (Case C-246/03)
secondly, that authorisation must take due account of all the
relevant provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. The French                                         (2003/C 184/43)
Republic has failed to comply with either of those two condi-
tions.
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 3.                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
(2) Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    Pollution (Barcelona Convention), OJ L 240 of 19.9.1977, p. 3.          by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
(3) Council Decision of 25 July 1977 concluding the Convention for
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the
    Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean       The Commission claims that the Court should:
    Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (OJ L 240 of 19.09.1977,
    p. 1).                                                                  —     declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, to
(4) Council Decision of 28 February 1983 concluding the Protocol for              notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    land-based sources (OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 1).                             tive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
                                                                            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour adminis-                     each Member State to which they are addressed.
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case
of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and                     Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
                           Elisabeth Paulus                                 to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                            to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                            Community.
                           (Case C-242/03)
                                                                            It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                           (2003/C 184/42)
                                                                            The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incor-
                                                                            poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
European Communities by order of the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus on the following question:
                                                                            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Is Article 129c of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income
tax, as amended, in the version applicable to the 2000 tax
                                                                                (Case C-247/03)
year, which, subject to certain conditions and limits, grants tax
relief to taxpayers who are natural persons and acquire shares
representing cash contributions in fully-taxable resident capital                                    (2003/C 184/44)
companies, compatible with the principle of the free move-
ment of capital within the European Community as laid down
by Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty, taking account of the                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
restrictions on that principle laid down inter alia by                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
Article 58(1)(a) of the EC Treaty?                                          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis,
                                                                            of its Legal Service.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/25
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                    amounting to EUR 15 745,34 on 30 September 2002
                                                                                and to EUR 7,97 (7,03 plus 0,94) per day until the
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, to                   defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or, in the
      notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and                        alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                        Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
      Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999                         of EUR 48 046, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
      relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the                      1998 (when the period laid down by the order for
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully
      that directive;                                                           discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             EUR 9 911 and thereafter EUR 7,24 per day;
                                                                          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon             Pleas in law and main arguments
each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                          The defendant ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ is a civil-law partnership
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are             governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,          of research and the dissemination of information on proble-
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty         matical issues in relation to the environment, development,
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                 town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the
Community.                                                                Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 94/
                                                                          801/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                          for research and technological development, including demon-
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                          stration in the field of telematics applications of common
                                                                          interest (1994 to 1998) (1), the following contracts: (i) Contract
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                          ARTEMIS — EN 1001 (implementation of the project ‘Artemis
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incor-
                                                                          — Application Research and Testing for Emergency Manage-
poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                                                                          ment Intelligent Systems’) and (ii) Contract TILEMATT —
                                                                          TR 1057 (implementation of the project ‘Tilematt — Testing
(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.                                             and Implementing Links in Europe for Multimodal Applica-
                                                                          tions of Transport Telematics’).
                                                                          Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
                                                                          were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the
                                                                          Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the                    needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
European Communities against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’                          considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)                       sement of the sums overpaid.
                 Marios Kontaratos and Others
                          (Case C-248/03)                                 The Commission pleads:
                          (2003/C 184/45)                                 —     in support of its principal claim: Article 5,3(a)(ii) of
                                                                                Annex II to the contracts, which provides that the
                                                                                Commission may immediately terminate the contract, or
An action against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ (Transport Environ-                       the participation of any contractor, by written notice for
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and                         any financial irregularity of a serious nature;
Others was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by the Commission                     —     in support of the principal head of claim regarding
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of                   payment of interest: the third paragraph of Article 5,4 of
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar, and K.                       Annex II to the contracts, which provides that, in the
Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service                     event of termination of the contract under Article 5,3(a)
in Luxembourg.                                                                  of the annex, interest is payable on any amount to be
                                                                                reimbursed;
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     in support of the alternative head of claim regarding
—     allow the application in its entirety;                                    payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
—     order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the                   rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
      defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the                    Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).
      Commission the entire amount of the wrongly made
      advance payments received by the defendant partnership
      from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,            (1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
      that is to say the sum of EUR 48 046, together with                 (2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.
      contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
      of mispayment, the interest calculated in that way


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/16

         Assignment of Judges to Chambers
   (2004/C 201/34)
   The Court of First Instance decided, at its Plenary Meeting on 8 July 2004, following the entry into office as Judge of Ms Trstenjak, to amend the decision of the Plenary Meeting of 2 July 2003 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers as follows:
   The following are appointed for the period from 8 July 2004 to 31 August 2004
   to the First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Mengozzi, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;
   to the First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Mengozzi, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak Judges;
   With regard to cases in which the written procedure was completed and a hearing for the oral procedure held or fixed before 8 July 2004, the First Chamber, sitting with three judges, and the First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges, shall continue to sit with the same composition as before for the oral procedure, the deliberations and the judgment.


title: Case C-115/01: Action brought on 14 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
19.5.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/13
     b)    subsequent control of the effectiveness and safety of       Pleas in law and main arguments
           the medicinal product is possibly made more diffi-
           cult by the fact that the marketing authorisation for
           the original medicinal product has been withdrawn;          The period for compliance laid down in the directive referred
                                                                       to in the conclusions of the Commission expired on 1 January
                                                                       1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     c)    the medicinal product imported as a parallel import
                                                                       visions necessary to implement Articles 5(1) and 6(1) of that
           has been widely used over many years in Member
                                                                       directive. The United Kingdom is therefore in breach of
           States and it is improbable that its continued sale
                                                                       Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive.
           presents a danger to public health?
3.   If, in the situation referred to in Question 1, Articles 28
     and 30 EC allow it to be found that the marketing                 (1) OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 14.
     authorisation granted for a parallel import has expired,
     may it be decided that the marketing authorisation for
     the parallel import expired immediately the original
     marketing authorisation was withdrawn, without
     allowing the parallel importer any time to adapt his
     activity? Do any of the circumstances referred to in
     Question 2 affect the question whether it may be decided
     that the marketing authorisation for a parallel import
     expires immediately?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                       (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
                                                                       of 14 December 2000, in the case of KB against 1) National
                                                                       Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
                                                                                Health
                                                                                (Case C-117/01)
Action brought on 14 March 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                (2001/C 150/25)
                        (Case C-115/01)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2001/C 150/24)                                (England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 December 2000,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2001,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of KB against 1) National
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the            Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March               Health, on the following question:
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwrightas agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Does the exclusion of the female-to-male transsexual partner
                                                                       of a female member of the National Health Service Pension
                                                                       Scheme, which limits the material dependant’s benefit to her
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            widower, constitute sex discrimination in contravention of
                                                                       Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 (1)?
—    declare that, having failed to implement Articles 5(1) and
     6(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February
     1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrat-          (1) Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     ive provisions relating to the application of Community               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
     rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating             application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ
     in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications                L 45, 19.02.1975, p. 19).
     sectors into national law, the United Kingdom is in breach
     of Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive;
—    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.


title: Case T-404/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/42

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package)
   (Case T-404/16)
   (2016/C 343/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (Shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 408 424

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1613/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-81/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidou v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action — Judgment of a Community court — Substantial new fact — None)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidou v Commission
   (Case F-81/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action - Judgment of a Community court - Substantial new fact - None)
   2009/C 193/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zoe Ketselidou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities to be taken into account for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded;

               2.

               Ms Ketselidou is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 313 of 6.12.2008, p. 59.


title: Joined Cases T-534/12 and T-535/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2014  — Still v OHIM (Fleet Data Services) (Community Trade Mark  — Applications for registration of the Community figurative marks Fleet Data Services and Truck Data Services  — Absolute ground for refusal  — Descriptiveness  — Absence of any distinctive character  — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009  — The right to be heard  — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2014 — Still v OHIM (Fleet Data Services)
   (Joined Cases T-534/12 and T-535/12) (1)

   ((Community Trade Mark - Applications for registration of the Community figurative marks Fleet Data Services and Truck Data Services - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Absence of any distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - The right to be heard - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 142/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Still GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Waller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2012 (Case R 130/2012-1 and Case R 4/2012-1), concerning applications for registration, first, of the figurative sign Fleet Data Services and, secondly, the figurative sign Truck Data Services as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Still GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-221/00: Action brought on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Municipale di Venezia SpA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/31
—     The decision is inadequately reasoned and is in breach of                  games of chance, by their nature, since they require the
      the principle of proportionality.                                          presence and direct involvement of the customer, cannot
                                                                                circulate beyond the casino, in striking contrast to other
                                                                                games of chance such as lotteries, betting on horses, dogs
                                                                                and so forth. Accordingly, the activity pursued in the
(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to                Casino can never be described as commercial and made
    Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC            subject to free competition.
    Treaty, OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                           —     Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                reasons.
                                                                           —     Infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                the applicant was never mentioned by the Commission
                                                                                in the documents made public during the procedure.
                                                                                Since it considered itself excluded from the procedure, it
                                                                                saw no reason whatsoever to intervene and submit
Action brought on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Municipale                           observations.
di Venezia SpA against Commission of the European
                           Communities
                          (Case T-221/00)
                          (2000/C 316/59)
                                                                           Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr GmbH
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Case T-222/00)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (2000/C 316/60)
European Communities on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Munici-
pale di Venezia SpA, represented by Tito Ballerino, of the
Milan Bar.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the decision of the Com-                European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr
      mission of 25 November 1999 so far as it is concerned                GmbH, of Friolzheim (Federal Republic of Germany), rep-
                                                                           resented by Dr Christofer Hebel and Dr Gesine Walz, Rechtsan-
                                                                           wälte, of Messrs Moosmayer, Hess, Hoffmann & Partner,
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Stuttgart (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     annul the defendant’s decision of 26 June 2000 not to
                                                                                open the main procedure for an examination of State
The decision contested in the present case is the same as in                     aid in favour of Hydraulik Markranstädt GmbH (Case
Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v                              No NN 48/98) and Hydraulik Seehausen GmbH (Case
Commission.                                                                      No NN 49/98);
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     The conditions laid down in the first paragraph of
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 87 of the EC Treaty were not met. The applicant
      claims in that regard that, first, Casinò di Venezia retains
      a lawful monopoly, since its activity is not subject                 By the contested decision, the Commission declined to open
      to competition by virtue of statutory protection, and,               the main procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC for an
      secondly, that the services provided by the applicant                examination of the compatibility with the common market of
      consist only in making available to customers its gaming             State aid granted by the German authorities to Hydraulik
      areas free of charge. The applicants point out that such             Markranstädt and Hydraulik Seehausen.


title: Case T-434/05: Action brought on  6 December 2005  — Gateway/OHIM

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/40

         Action brought on 6 December 2005 — Gateway/OHIM
   (Case T-434/05)
   (2006/C 60/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Gateway Inc. (Irvine, USA) [represented by: C. Jones, P. Massey, Solicitors]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH (Munich, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order that Decision No 1068/2004 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004-1) be annulled and that the applicant's opposition to Community trade mark application No 2 190 627 in opposition proceedings No B 502 148 be allowed in its entirety, and;

               —

               Order that the Office pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ACTIVY Media Gateway’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 — application No 2 190 627

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks and figurative marks ‘GATEWAY’, ‘GATEWAY 2000’, ‘GATEWAY.NET’, ‘GATEWAY PROFILE’ and ‘GATEWAY ASTRO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal defined the relevant consumers wrongly and erred in the assessment of the trade mark applied for. Further the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal disregarded the reputation and well-known character of the earlier marks and that, contrary to what the Board of Appeal held, the earlier marks are similar to the mark applied for.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-136/05 (1)

   (2006/C 60/70)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 7 December 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-136/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 115 of 14.05.2005.


title: Case C-528/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/21

         Action brought on 15 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-528/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/35
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures in implementing the first railway package, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC (1) and under Article 30(1), (4) and (5) of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   (i)
         Failure to apply a system of incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and access charges

   The Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic, without advancing an adequate explanation, has not adopted the measures necessary for the actual application of a system which provides infrastructure managers with incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) to (5) of Directive 2001/14.
   (ii)
         Failure to lay down a performance scheme

   In addition, the Commission contends that the Hellenic Republic, without advancing an adequate explanation, has not adopted the necessary measures and officially established a set of mechanisms to ensure the creation and application of a performance scheme with the objective of minimising disruption and improving the performance of the railway network in Greece, and it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2001/14.
   (iii)
         Failure to set up an independent regulatory body and to ensure that it is able to impose penalties

   Moreover, the Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic, without advancing an adequate explanation, has not created a regulatory body responsible for transport matters which is independent in its organisation, funding decisions, legal structure and decision-making from any infrastructure manager, charging body, allocation body or applicant. Specifically, the National Railway Council which has responsibility operates under the supervision of the Ministry of Transport and Communications which, as is known, exerts a decisive influence on the railway undertaking TRAINOSE. This situation obviously results in a conflict of interests given the position of the public officials as members of the regulatory body who have to ensure that there is no discriminatory treatment to the detriment of the State railway undertaking’s competitors while, at the same time, in the context of their regulatory duties, they must take account of the commercial interests of the railway undertaking which is overseen by the ministry itself. On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission contends that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/14.
   Furthermore, the Commission contends that the Hellenic Republic, without advancing an adequate explanation, has not adopted the measures necessary for ensuring that the regulatory body is able to impose penalties in cases of a refusal to provide information or in order for a situation to be remedied. More specifically, the Hellenic Republic has not adopted the decision establishing the type of penalties, the amount of fines and the procedure for imposing and levying the latter, with the consequence that it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(1), (4) and (5) of Directive 2001/14.

      (1)  OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.


title: Case C-194/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2005 — Dr. Susanne Gassmayr v Bundesministerin für Wissenschaft und Forschung

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2005 — Dr. Susanne Gassmayr v Bundesministerin für Wissenschaft und Forschung
   (Case C-194/08)
   (2008/C 197/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr Susanne Gassmayr

      Defendant: Bundesministerin für Wissenschaft und Forschung
   Questions referred

               1.

                           1.

                           Does Article 11(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (1) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) have direct effect?

                           2.

                           If those provisions do have direct effect are they to be construed as meaning that there is a continued entitlement to payment of an allowance for on-call duty during periods in which expectant mothers are prohibited from working and/or during maternity leave?

                           3.

                           Does this apply, in any event, where a Member State decides on a system of continuation of ‘pay’ which in principle encompasses total income, with the exception, however, of so-called ‘extra emoluments’ based on tasks performed (contingent on performance of those tasks) (as listed in Paragraph 15 of the [Austrian] Law on salaries (Gehaltsgesetz, ‘GehG’) 1956), such as the allowance for on-call duty at issue here?

               2.

               If the aforementioned provisions do not have direct effect, are they to be transposed by the Member States in such a way that a woman worker who is not permitted to render on-call duties during periods in which expectant mothers are prohibited from working and/or during maternity leave is entitled to continue to be paid an allowance for such services?

      (1)  OJ L 348, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2001 in Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — 1974 framework agreement between the Commission and the trade unions/staff associations — Revision or modification — Consultation procedure — Introduction of new modalities — Admissibility)

text:
C 31/8                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                           Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                       of 18 October 2001                                  and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
                                                                           nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                                                                           decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
       in Case T-333/99: X v European Central Bank (1)
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 71/1999-3), which
(Officials — Servants of the European Central Bank —                       was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Legality of                  Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
conditions of employment — Rights of the defence —                         A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
     Dismissal — Harassment — Misuse of the internet)                      D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                           (2002/C 31/14)
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-333/99: X, residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),
represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers,          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli and V. Saintot and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for annulment of the decision of the
Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 9 November
1999 to continue the suspension of the applicant and to
withhold one half of his basic salary, and of the decision of
18 November 1999 dismissing the applicant — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October
2001, in which it:                                                                              of 15 November 2001
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           in Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                             European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                    (Officials — 1974 framework agreement between the Com-
                                                                           mission and the trade unions/staff associations — Revision
                                                                           or modification — Consultation procedure — Introduction
                                                                                of new modalities — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/16)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     of 19 September 2001
in Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     In Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
                             (OHIM) (1)                                    mission of the European Communities, residing at Senninger-
                                                                           berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                         mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the ‘Operational
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                   Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and
                                                                           related procedures’ agreed between the Commission and the
                           (2002/C 31/15)                                  majority of the trade unions/staff associations on 19 January
                                                                           2000 or, alternatively, of the composition of the consultation
                                                                           body as provided for by those rules in so far as it excludes the
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from that body — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
                                                                           President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
In Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf                   J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,                   judgment on 15 November 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 2.2.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 31/9
1.    Annuls the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels, the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      consultation body and related procedures’ agreed between
      the Commission and the majority of the trade unions/staff
      associations on 19 January 2000, in so far as they exclude the
      trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from the consultation body;                                  of 19 September 2001
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                            in Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt v Council of the European
                                                                             Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                            (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                                                                            Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2330/98 — Compensation for producers — Limitation
                                                                                — Action manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/18)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 15 November 2001                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di
    Meana and Leoluca Orlando v European Parliament (1)
                         (Taxation of costs)
                                                                            In Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt, residing in Großenlüder
                                                                            (Germany), represented by R.J. Seimetz, lawyer, with an address
                            (2002/C 31/17)                                  for service Luxembourg, against Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr) — application for compen-
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        sation under Article 235 and the second paragraph of
                                                                            Article 288 EC, for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                                                                            by reason of being prevented from marketing milk pursuant
                                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
In Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di                      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
Meana, former Italian Member of the European Parliament,                    to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando,                milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
former Italian Member of the European Parliament, residing in               supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84
Palermo (Italy), represented by W. Viscardini Donà, assisted by             of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application
G. Donà, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 132, p. 11) — the Court of
—application for taxation of costs to be paid by the defendant              First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
to the applicants in compliance with the judgment of the                    President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
Court of 26 October 2000 in Joined Cases T-83/99 to T-85/99                 Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the operative
Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493                    part of which is as follows:
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 November 2001, the operative
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
part of which is as follows:
The total amount of costs to be paid by the European Parliament to          2.    The applicant shall bear the costs.
the applicants is fixed at ITL 40 000 000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.
( 1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-550/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/23

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-550/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 200/33)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.