title: Case C-110/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Inter-Environnement Wallonnie ASBL v Région wallonne

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Inter-Environnement Wallonnie ASBL v Région wallonne
   (Case C-110/09)
   2009/C 129/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inter-Environnement Wallonnie ASBL

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a nitrogen management plan relating to designated vulnerable zones established pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1) a plan or programme under Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, (2) which is prepared for the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use sectors, and does it set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EEC? (3)

               2.

               Is a nitrogen management plan relating to designated vulnerable zones established pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources a plan or programme under Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment which, in view of the likely effect on sites, requires an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC, (4) in particular when the nitrogen management plan in question applies to all the vulnerable zones designated in the Région wallonne?

               3.

               Is a nitrogen management plan relating to designated vulnerable zones established pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources a plan or programme other than one of those referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC, which sets the framework for future development consent in regard to which the Member States must under Article 3(4) determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects under paragraph (5)?

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

      (3)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (4)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case C-162/11: Order of the President of the Court of 26 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria)) — Publikumsrat des Österreichischen Rundfunks v Österreichischer Rundfunk

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria)) — Publikumsrat des Österreichischen Rundfunks v Österreichischer Rundfunk
   (Case C-162/11) (1)

   2011/C 311/50
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio by order of that court of 14 February 1996 in the case of Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso and Others against Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (Interveners ad adiuvandum: Consorzio Agrario Interprovinciale di Treviso e Belluno and Others) (Case C-398/96)

text:
No C 54/ 14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                            22 . 2 . 97
      that the undertakings in question participated in 'what                — its meeting competition with an outsider, without
      is essentially, if anything at all, an Article 85 practice';                making losses;
( c ) that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it                  — its granting loyalty rebates, expressly exempted by
      decided that concerted behaviour among Cewal                                a group exemption regulation.
      members could be viewed as ' abuses ' within the
      meaning of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, although they             (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986
      were not the result of unilateral conduct by the Cewal                laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85
      members;                                                              and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport ( OJ No L 378 ,
                                                                            31 . 12 . 1986 , p. 4 ).
( d ) that, at the very least, the Court of First Instance has
      not responded to the appellant's pleas in that respect.
Alternatively, the appellant claims that the fine should be
annulled or substantially reduced . Indeed, they have                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
shown :                                                                 Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio by order of that court
                                                                        of 14 February 1996 in the case of Associazione
                                                                        Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso and
( a ) that account ought to have been taken of the novelty              Others        against      Ministero        delle  Risorse   Agricole,
      of the alleged infringements, of the regulatory context           Alimentari       e    Forestali      ( Interveners  ad   adiuvandum :
      in Zaire, and of the cooperative attitude of the                  Consorzio Agrario Interprovinciale di Treviso e Belluno
      appellant;                                                                                and Others )
                                                                                ( Case C-398/96 )
( b ) that the statement of objections was not addressed to                                             ( 97/C 54/20 )
      the appellant but to Cewal , and the statement of
      objections threatened to impose fines on Cewal and
      not on its members, and that therefore the                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Commission was not entitled thereafter to impose                  European Communities by order of the Tribunale
      fines on some of Cewal 's members without having                  Amministrativo Regionale ( Regional Administrative
      announced it in the statement of objections ;                     Court), Lazio, of 14 February 1996, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 16 December 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case       of Associazione          Produttori  Vitivinicoli  della
( c ) that no reason is given why no fine was imposed on                Provincia di Treviso and Others against Ministero delle
      CMZ ( which carried 40% of the trade ); that the only             Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestall ( Interveners ad
      reason is that the Commission found it politically                adiuvandum : Consorzio Agrario Interprovincial di Treviso
      difficult to impose a fine on a Zairian liner company;            e Belluno and Others ) on the following questions:
( d ) that also the interest rate applicable to the payment of          1 . Is Article 39 ( 4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/
      the fine ( 13,25% ) is abnormally high .                               87 (') which provides that the sole criterion for
                                                                             allocating between the various producers the quantities
                                                                             of table wine for distillation is to be a percentage
The appellant finally submits that anti-trust procedures                     based on the yield per hectare where it exceeds a
resulting in the imposition of fines upon companies are                      certain level — leaving aside the possibility of
procedures having criminal character within the meaning                      interaction with other methods, which take into
of the ECHR and that therefore the Court of First
                                                                             account the production stocks at the close of the wine
Instance has infringed :                                                     year, or any other objective criterion — contrary to
                                                                             the principle of proportionality in that it lays down a
                                                                             single unit of measurement which is essentially
( a ) Article 6 ( 3 ) of the ECHR in so far as the 'cause of the
                                                                             restrictive and inappropriate as a means of restoring
      accusation ' has been modified by the Court of First                   market balance ?
      Instance ;
                                                                        2 . Is the fourth indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Regulation
( b ) Article 7 ( 1 ) of the ECHR in so far as the Court of
                                                                             ( EEC ) No 441 /88 ( 2 ) which, for the purposes of the
      First Instance has considered that the Appellant could
                                                                             common market in wine, designates the whole of Italy
      be fined, contrary to all existing case-law, for entirely              as a single production region ( Region 4 ) incompatible
      novel    abuses ,    never condemned       before , and   in
                                                                             with the first subparagraph of Article 4(1 ) which lays
      particular:                                                            down that, in designating the production regions,
                                                                             account must also be taken of ' production and
      — its refusal to renounce an exclusivity right granted                 climatic conditions ', and does it in substance
           by the State ;                                                    circumvent the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 1 )
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 15
      which provides that 'the said regions must coincide                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      with administrative units larger than communes and
       comprise administrative units on which statistics are               Concerning annulment
       available for the reference wine years ', by identifying
       production regions with Member States ?                             — Inadequacy and contradictory nature of the grounds of
                                                                                the judgment — Error of law: the system in
(') OJ No L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p. 1 .                                             Martinique, voluntarily limiting imports but with an
( 2 ) OJ No L4S , 18 . 2 . 1988 , p . 15 .                                       aggregate quota ( 15% ) greater than that in
                                                                                metropolitan France (3 % ), was necessarily of the same
                                                                                kind as that applying in the latter territory. It is
                                                                                profoundly contradictory to say that the arrangement
                                                                                at national level is not of an exclusively State nature
                                                                                whereas the local arrangement in Martinique is of a
                                                                                State nature .
Appeal brought on 19 December 1996 by Somaco Sari
against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1996 by                     Concerning compensation
the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T                   — In the light of three successive applications to the
387/94 between Asia Motor France SA and Others and                               Court of First Instance ( for declarations of failure to
          the Commission of the European Communities                             act and annulment ), it is beyond dispute that the
                          ( Case C-401 /96 P )                                   Commission has applied Community law in an
                                                                                unlawful way, in addition by blocking the matter for
                              ( 97/C 54/21 )                                     eleven years . It would be extraordinary if such
                                                                                conduct were incapable of constituting a wrongful act
                                                                                or omission involving contractual liability on the part
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                         of the Commission, requiring it to make good the
1996 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of                             damage expressly specified and clearly originating
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                          from the very conduct objected to .
in Case T-387/94 between Asia Motor France SA, Jean
Michel Cesbron, Monin Automobiles SA, Europe Auto                          (■) OJ No L 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 , p . 24 .
Service (EAS ) and Somaco Sari and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 December
 1996 by Somaco Sari, represented by Jean Claude
Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Beatrix de Bourbon .
                                                                           d'Instance, Saint-Denis , by judgments of that court of
                                                                           9 December 1996 in the cases of Société Béton Express v.
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               Direction Régionale des Douanes, Société Nouvelle de
                                                                           Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes , Société
                                                                           Bourbon Lumière v. Direction Régionale des Douanes and
— set aside the part of the judgment of the Court of First                 Société Ouest Concassage v. Direction Régionale des
       Instance of 18 September 1996 (') dismissing its                             Douanes — Intervener: Region of La Réunion
       application for annulment and damages,
                                                                               ( Cases C-405/96, C-406/96, C-407/96 and C-408/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/22 )
— pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
       Justice:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       — annul      the     decision       of the  Commission      of      European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
            13 October 1994 in so far as it rejects Somaco's               d'Instance ( District Court ), Saint-Denis , of 9 December
            complaint,                                                      1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling, in the cases
       — order the Commission, under Articles 178 and 215                  of Société Béton Express v. Direction Régionale des
                                                                           Douanes, Société Nouvelle de Concassage v. Direction
            of the Treaty, to make good the damage caused to
                                                                            Régionale de Douanes , Société Bourbon Lumière v.
            the complainant by the institutions, and,
                                                                            Direction Régionale des Douanes and Société Ouest
            consequently, to fix the quantum of damages at
            the amount of interest at the rate of 9,75 % on the             Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes, on the
                                                                            following question :
            sums at which the main damage is evaluated since
            the decision of 5 December 1991 deciding not to
                                                                            Following the judgment delivered in Legros [ Case C-163/
            pursue the case up to the date of judgment,                     90 Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects v.
                                                                            Legros and Others [ 1992] ECR I-4625J on 16 July 1992,
 — order the Commission to pay the full costs, both of                      has Law No 92-676 of 17 July 1992, adopted in
       these proceedings and of the proceedings which led to                implementation of the Decision 89/688 of the Council of
        the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                      Ministers of the European Communities of 22 December
        18 September 1996 .                                                 1989 ('), had the effect of replacing a charge having


title: Case T-374/06: Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/26

         Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)
   (Case T-374/06)
   (2007/C 42/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dr. Grandel GmbH
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 October 2006 in so far as it refuses to allow the Community trade mark application in respect of the goods in Class 5 ‘food supplements not for medical purposes, mainly consisting of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and trace elements; dietetic substances not adapted for medical use, namely amino acids and trace elements; the aforesaid goods not for use as antiepileptics’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Epican’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (Application No 2 524 510)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dr. Grandel GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EPIGRAN’ originally registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 and now registered only for goods in Class 3 (Community trade mark No 560 292), albeit that the opposition was brought solely against the registration in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.

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


title: Case T-20/15: Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v OHIM — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/34

         Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v OHIM — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)
   (Case T-20/15)
   (2015/C 089/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola (Milano, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PICCOLOMINI’ — Application for registration No 10 564 573

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2265/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM and the third party to bear the costs of proceedings including the costs of the Applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-59/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2015  — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2015 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)
   (Case T-59/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 089/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2013 (Case R 573/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Blackrock, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-174/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/47

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission
   (Case T-174/14)
   2014/C 142/61
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

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

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

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

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

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

                           —

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

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

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


title: Case F-70/14 DISS: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Simon v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Concept of a measure having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/51

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Simon v Commission
      (Case F-70/14 DISS) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Concept of a measure having an adverse effect - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Anne-Claire Simon (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and lastly by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Subject matter of the case

      Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which applies the new General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, in the alternative, an application seeking an order that the Commission compensate the applicant for the harm resulting from the excessively long period taken to deal with her transfer application.

         Operative part of the order

                  1)

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2)

                  Anne-Claire Simon is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 28.


title: Case T-3/09: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding — Alteration planned by the Italian authorities to an aid scheme previously authorised by the Commission — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-3/09) (1)

   (State aid - Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding - Alteration planned by the Italian authorities to an aid scheme previously authorised by the Commission - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market)
   2011/C 89/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, C. Urraca Caviedes and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C-20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-518/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 November 2014  — Senatex GmbH v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 November 2014 — Senatex GmbH v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord
   (Case C-518/14)
   (2015/C 034/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Senatex GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the ex nunc effect of the first issue of an invoice, as established by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Case C-152/02 Terra Baubedarf-Handel v Finanzamt Osterholz-Scharmbeck
                   (1), qualified by the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-368/09 Pannon Gép Centrum v Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztáy
                   (2) and Case C-271/12 Petroma Transports v Belgium
                   (3) as regards cases, such as the present, in which an incomplete invoice is completed, so that the Court of Justice ultimately intended to permit retrospective effect in such cases?

               2.

               What are the minimum requirements for an invoice to be capable of correction with retrospective effect? Is it necessary that the original invoice bears a tax number or a VAT identification number, or can these be added later with the consequence that the right to deduction is retained on the basis of the original invoice?

               3.

               Is a correction to an invoice in time if it is only made in the course of objection proceedings against the decision (amendment notice) of the tax authority?

      (1)  ECLI:EU:C:204:268.

      (2)  ECLI:EU:C:2010:441.

      (3)  ECLI:EU:C:2013:297.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2004 in Case T-248/03 Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settlement — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 23 January 2004
   in Case T-248/03 Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Amicable settlement - No need to adjudicate)
   (2004/C 118/90)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-248/03: Société de Produits Nestlé SA, established in Vevey (Switzerland), represented by J.-J. Evrard, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and I. de Medrano Caballero), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Grupo Kalise Menorquina SA, established in Palau de Plegamans (Spain) – application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2003 (Case R 732/2001-2) relating to opposition proceedings – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 23 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003


title: Case T-484/10: Action brought on 14 October 2010 — Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/50

         Action brought on 14 October 2010 — Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission
   (Case T-484/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/79
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gas Natural Fenosa SDG, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, under Article 263 TFEU, the Decision of the European Commission of 29 September 2010;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Decision challenged in these proceedings approves the Spanish legislation designed to pay compensation in respect of the additional costs borne by those electricity producers who, as a result of a public-service obligation, must ensure that a part of their production uses domestic coal.
   Gas Natural Fenosa submits that the Decision is contrary to Community law and accordingly seeks its annulment on the basis of the following pleas:

               1.

               First, the Decision infringes Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) inasmuch as the disputed aid raises doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

               2.

               Second, the Decision infringes a number of provisions of primary and secondary law and the aid cannot therefore be regarded as compatible with the common market, namely:

                           —

                           Community legislation concerning the environment, specifically Article 4 TEU and Article 191 TFEU and the rules implementing environmental obligations and, in particular, Directive 2003/87/EC, as recently amended by Directive 2009/29/EC, (2) in that the contested measure promotes the operation of installations which increase the level of gas emissions into the atmosphere, is in breach of the prohibition on allocating new free emission allowances and promotes mining activities which represent a serious threat to the natural environment.

                           —

                           The Treaty rules concerning the internal market, specifically Articles 34 and 49 TFEU, since the measure impedes and renders more financially onerous the importation of electricity generated from coal other than Spanish coal and of gas as well as the plans for expanding the capacity for generating electricity from gas and/or imported coal.

                           —

                           Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, in that the measure promotes anti-competitive conduct on the part of producers of Spanish coal.

                           —

                           Article 126(1) TFEU, given that the contested measure entails an unnecessary and disproportionate increase in public costs.

                           —

                           Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002, (3) in that the contested measure authorises an increase in the volume of aid already granted by previous measures and causes a distortion in the market for the production of electric power.

               3.

               Third, the Decision infringes Articles 3(2) and 11(4) of the Second Electricity Market Directive (Directive 2003/54/EC) (4) and Article 106(2) TFEU as well as the Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation and the principle of proportionality, since (i) the conditions laid down by those provisions for the establishment of a service of general economic interest for reasons of security of supply are not met and (ii) in any event, there are other less costly ways of achieving the objectives pursued by the contested measure.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 63).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1).

      (4)  Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37).


title: Case T-32/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/17

         Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)
   (Case T-32/12)
   2012/C 109/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Muslahadin Vardar (Löhne, Germany) (represented by: I. Höfener and M. Boden, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joker, Inc. (Allen, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in case R 475/2011-4, and alter it so that the opposition is rejected and the applicant’s application for registration is granted; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘pingulina’, in orange, violet, blue, green, yellow and black, for goods in classes 20, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8402992

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The opposition was based inter alia upon the International trade mark registration No 537386A of the figurative mark ‘PINGU’, in black and white, for goods inter alia in classes 20, 24 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier marks.


title: Case T-483/07: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Romania v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/22

         Order of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Romania v Commission
   (Case T-483/07) (1)

   2012/C 273/38
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Communication

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/19

         Communication
   (2005/C 271/37)
   On 6 October 2005, Mr Hans Jung, Registrar of the Court of First Instance, left office and Mr Emmanuel Coulon, appointed Registrar of the Court of First Instance by decision of that Court of 5 July 2005 taken pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 224 of the EC Treaty, the fourth paragraph of Article 14 of the EAEC Treaty, and Articles 20 and 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, took the oath and assumed office for a period of six years up to 5 October 2011.


title: Case C-4/00: Action brought on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 122/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.4.2000
         The Commission failed to address the question, as it          on the control of administrative bodies amount to restrictions
         should have done under Article 95(6), whether the             on the establishment of companies, in particular in the case of
         Danish rules notified are a means of arbitrary discrimi-      branch offices, agencies or subsidiaries of companies estab-
         nation or a disguised restriction on trade between            lished in other Member States where such restrictions do not
         Member States, or whether they constitute an obstacle         exist. In the case of companies or firms managed by nationals
         to the functioning of the internal market.                    of non-Member countries, the restrictions would force them
                                                                       to change the composition of their administrative bodies
     — Defective statement of reasons.                                 should they wish to register a ship and establish themselves
                                                                       in France. Consequently, the requirements laid down in
                                                                       Article 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) infringe Article 48 in that they
                                                                       impose on the holders of capital and on the administrative
                                                                       organs of companies or firms nationality requirements which
                                                                       are not stipulated in Article 48. Those requirements thus cause
                                                                       companies or firms to be treated differently from natural
                                                                       persons as regards freedom of establishment when registering
                                                                       a ship. Although the provisions apply without discrimination
Action brought on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of                  to both French and foreign EEC companies or firms, they
 the European Communities against the French Republic                  nevertheless infringe Article 43 and Article 48, as do
                                                                       Article 3(3) and (4) and Article 3-1(1) and (2) in so far as they
                           (Case C-4/00)                               refer to Article 3(2). Failure by a Member State to fulfil its
                                                                       obligations — Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty —
                                                                       conditions under which commercial vessels may sail under the
                         (2000/C 122/12)                               French flag — nationality requirements for holders of company
                                                                       capital and directors.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 January
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Action brought on 14 January 2000 by Commission of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 the European Communities against European Central
the Court should:                                                                                Bank
1. Declare that, by keeping in force Article 3 and Article 3-1                                   (Case C-11/00)
     of Law No 67-5 defining the status of ships and other
     sea-going vessels, and Article 219 of the Customs Code, as                                 (2000/C 122/13)
     amended by Law No 96-151 of 26 February 1996 on
     transport, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 43 and Article 48 of the EC             An action against European Central Bank was brought before
     Treaty;                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Janua-
                                                                       ry 2000 by Commission of the European Communities,
2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         represented by Christiaan Timmermans, Assistant Director
                                                                       General of the Legal Service, Hans Peter Hartvig and Ulrich
                                                                       Wölker, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Under the third subparagraph, letters (a), (b) and (c), of             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Article 3(2) of Law No 67-5, shipowners who adopt the
form of a company or firm must satisfy certain nationality             — annul the decision of the governors of the European
requirements in regard to both the members of its administrat-             Central Bank of 7 October 1999 on fraud prevention (1);
ive and managerial bodies (paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c)) and the
holders of its capital (paragraph 2(c)). However, the Member           — order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.
States are required to treat any company or firm satisfying the
criteria set out in Article 48 of the Treaty in the same way as
they treat natural persons who are nationals of other Member
States, even where the majority of the members of the board            Pleas in law and main arguments
are not nationals of a Member State of the Community, or
where the company or firm is set up by persons from                    Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Euro-
non-Member countries, or is funded by capital from                     pean Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concern-
non-Member countries, or is a subsidiary of a parent company           ing investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud
established in a non-Member country. The French restrictions           Office (OLAF):


title: Case C-388/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany)) — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 15, 27 and 28 — Articles 39 EC and 42 EC — Former migrant worker — Work in the Member State of origin and in another Member State — Retirement in the Member State of origin — Pensions paid by both Member States — Separate social security scheme covering the risk of reliance on care — Existence in the other former Member State of employment — Optional continued affiliation to that scheme — Maintenance of the right to a care allowance after the return to the Member State of origin)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany)) — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse
   (Case C-388/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 15, 27 and 28 - Articles 39 EC and 42 EC - Former migrant worker - Work in the Member State of origin and in another Member State - Retirement in the Member State of origin - Pensions paid by both Member States - Separate social security scheme covering the risk of reliance on care - Existence in the other former Member State of employment - Optional continued affiliation to that scheme - Maintenance of the right to a care allowance after the return to the Member State of origin)
   2011/C 252/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joao Filipe da Silva Martins

      Defendant: Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht — Interpretation of the provisions of Community law on the free movement of persons and social security of migrant workers, particularly Articles 39 and 42 EC and Articles 27 and 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Former migrant worker drawing a pension in his State of origin and in the former State of employment and entitled in the latter to a benefit covering the risk of dependence (‘Pflegegeld’) not existing in the social security system of the State of origin — Maintenance of the right to that benefit after return to the State of origin

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
   If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009


title: Case F-10/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 March 2011 Hecq v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Social security — Meeting of 100 % of medical costs — Implied rejection decision — No decision recognising the occupational origin of the illness — Limited power of the administration — Decision to reject the complaint — Decision not purely confirmatory — No complaint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/52

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 March 2011
   Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-10/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Social security - Meeting of 100 % of medical costs - Implied rejection decision - No decision recognising the occupational origin of the illness - Limited power of the administration - Decision to reject the complaint - Decision not purely confirmatory - No complaint - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 252/112
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Subject-matter of the case

   Application for annulment of the decision dismissing a claim for 100 % reimbursement of various medical costs.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Mr Hecq is ordered to pay the whole of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010, p. 70.


title: Case T-369/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — You-Q BV v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — You-Q BV v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE)
   (Case T-369/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks)
   2012/C 138/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: You-Q BV, formerly Handicare Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van Roeyen)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apple Corps Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Terry, Solicitor, and F. Clark, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2010 (Case R 1276/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Apple Corps Ltd and Movingpeople.net International BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders You-Q BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case F-49/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/36

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-49/15)
   (2015/C 190/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant in the form of reclassification in grade AST 5, whereas the applicant had been appointed to grade AD 5, for making statements, deemed to be false, in order to receive the resettlement allowance and removal expenses.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-324/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain) lodged on 8 June 2016 — Dragados, S.A. v Cabildo Insular de Tenerife

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain) lodged on 8 June 2016 — Dragados, S.A. v Cabildo Insular de Tenerife
   (Case C-324/16)
   (2016/C 305/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 — Santa Cruz de Tenerife

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dragados, S.A.

      Defendant: Cabildo Insular de Tenerife

      Questions referred

   Regard being had to Articles 4(1), 6 and 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions: (1)

               1.

               Must Article 7(2) of the directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not make recovery of the principal debt conditional on the waiver of the right to interest for late payment?

               2.

               Must Article 7(3) of the directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not make recovery of the principal debt conditional on the waiver of the right to compensation for recovery costs?
               Should the answer to those two questions be in the affirmative,

               3.

               Where the debtor is a contracting authority, can it rely on the freedom of contract of the parties in order to avoid its obligation to pay interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.


title: Case T-541/10: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — ADEDY and Others v Council (Actions for annulment — Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying a situation of excessive deficit — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/45

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — ADEDY and Others v Council
   (Case T-541/10) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying a situation of excessive deficit - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 26/88
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Anotati Dioikisi Enoseon Dimosion Ypallilon (ADEDY), (Athens, Greece); Spyridon Papaspyros (Athens); and Ilias Iliopoulos (Athens) (represented by: M.-M. Tsipra, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Middleton, A. De Gregorio Merino and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

      Intervening party in support of the Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J. P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, firstly, of Council Decision 2010/320/EU of 10 May 2010 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2010 L 145, p. 6; corrigendum OJ 2011 L 209, p. 63) and, secondly, of Council Decision 2010/486/EU of 7 September 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU (OJ 2010 L 241, p. 12).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Orders Anotati Dioikisi Enoseon Dimosion Ypallilon (ADEDY), Mr Spyridon Papaspyros and Mr Ilias Iliopoulos to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-424/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — Jinan Meide Casting v Council (Dumping — Importations of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Confidential treatment of the normal value calculations — Information provided in good time — Time limit for adopting a decision on market economy treatment — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Principle of non-retroactivity — Article 2(7) to (11), Article 3(1) to (3), Article 6(7), Article 19(1) and (5), and Article 20(2) and (4), of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — Jinan Meide Casting v Council
   (Case T-424/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Importations of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Confidential treatment of the normal value calculations - Information provided in good time - Time limit for adopting a decision on market economy treatment - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Principle of non-retroactivity - Article 2(7) to (11), Article 3(1) to (3), Article 6(7), Article 19(1) and (5), and Article 20(2) and (4), of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   (2016/C 305/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by S. Gubel, lawyer, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1), to the extent that it applies to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia, to the extent that it applies to Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case T-42/00: Action brought on 28 February 2000 by City-Broker Deutschland GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
13.5.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — total non-access is not compatible with the principles of
                                                                             accountability, legal certainty and proportionality.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
                                                                            arrangements for private subject to excise duty and on the
                                                                            holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
The applicant states that its business has been affected by the             L 76, p. 1)
abolition, with effect from 1 July 1999, of tax- and duty-free          (2) Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
sales to travellers on intra-EU journeys. It has a vital interest in        1994, on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,
understanding the legal rules governing the tax- and duty-free              p. 58).
sales in place since 1 July 1999 and the position of tax- and
duty-free supplies to the bodies and in the circumstances
mentioned in Article 23 of Directive 92/12/EEC (1). It therefore
requested access to certain minutes of the Committee on
Excise Duties relating to discussions on some of the provisions
of that directive. By letter of 20 January 2000, the Secretary
General refused to forward, even in non-confidential form, the
minutes of the Committee relating to its non-comitology                 Action brought on 28 February 2000 by City-Broker
capacity.                                                               Deutschland GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                              in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-42/00)
The Commission denies access to the documents on the                                             (2000/C 135/36)
grounds of confidentiality, requested by the person that
supplied the information, and of protecting the institution’s
interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings, i.e. the                               (Language of the case: German)
discussions with the Committee. For the Commission, the
Committee has comitology and non-comitology functions; in
its comitology function, its work aims at preparing formal              An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
legal acts to be adopted and published by the Commission,               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
whereas in its non-comitology function it offers a forum                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
enabling the Member States to exchange opinions and ideas,              28 February 2000 by City-Broker Deutschland GmbH, of
and the role of the Commission consists in stimulating the              Munich (Germany), represented by Gert Würtenberger,
discussion in order to reach more uniform application, but              Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff, Schweiger-
also, as guardian of the Treaty, in ensuring that Member States         strasse 2, Munich.
do not exceed the boundaries fixed in Community legislation.
The Commission considers that the Committee in its non-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
comitology function has no legislative role or any similar role
and therefore attributes to the exception of confidentiality the        — annul the decision adopted on 16 December 1999 by the
widest scope possible.                                                       Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered
                                                                             under number R 319/1999-3;
                                                                        — declare that the mark ‘CityBroker’, the subject of the
                                                                             application, is capable of registration;
The applicant contends that the Commission has misapplied
the rules relating to public access to Commission documents (2)         — order the Office to register the mark in the Community
(the Access Rules) on the following grounds:                                 Trade Mark Register.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— the distinction between the comitology and non-comito-
    logy functions has no validity in the case of the Access            The trade mark con-             ‘CityBroker’     —    application
    Rules;                                                              cerned:                         No 303 099
                                                                        Goods or service con-           Services in Class 35
                                                                        cerned:
— the Commission has failed in the Decision to meet the                 Decision contested be-          Refusal of registration by the
    criteria for either confidentiality exception in light of the       fore the Board of Ap-           examiner
    principles of accountability arid legal certainty;                  peal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Inadmissible use of the ‘sharing-key’ paper
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)             The applicant maintains that the use of evidence supplied
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               anonymously is generally inadmissible.
                                                                        — Inadequate statement of reasons
                                                                            The explanations in ground 68 of the contested decision,
                                                                            in particular, concerning proof of active protection of the
                                                                            home market, were contradictory and, in themselves,
                                                                            inconclusive.
Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the                       — Erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC to the agreement
                    European Communities                                    with British Steel
                         (Case T-44/00)                                     This agreement was negotiated individually and contained
                                                                            no exclusive supply agreement or horizontal concertation.
                                                                            The chosen percentage link to British Steel’s total require-
                        (2000/C 135/37)
                                                                            ments and the agreed price formula were legally unobjec-
                                                                            tionable.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        — Erroneous application of the guidelines for the procedure
                                                                            in determining fines
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The determination of the fine contained an error of
European Communities on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-                         assessment, since it did not take sufficient account of the
mannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office is in Mülheim                  varying market significance of the undertakings concerned.
an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by Martin Klusmann,                      In addition, further extenuating grounds and the appli-
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                    cant’s contribution to elucidating the matter were not
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmidt, 7 Val Ste                     appropriately evaluated.
Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision K(99) 4154 endg. of
    8 December 1999, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant          Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil
    by that decision by an appropriate amount;                          National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and
                                                                        Others against the Commission of the European Com-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             munities
                                                                                (Case T-45/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 135/38)
The applicant is a producer of seamless steel tubes. In the
contested decision, the Commission finds infringement of
Article 81(1) EC by the applicant and several other undertak-
ings. The action is based on the following grounds in particular:                           (Language of the case: French)
— Infringement of procedural rights                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    Certain parts of the investigation file were withheld from          European Communities on 29 February 2000, by the Conseil
    the applicant, contrary to the provisions on access to              National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.), whose
    Commission documents.                                               registered office is in Suresnes, France, the Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériels de
— Infringement of rights of the defence                                 Bâtiment-Travaux Publics et de Manutention (D.L.R.), whose
                                                                        registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto Contrôle
    Because of the short deadlines for replying to the heads of         31 and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered office is in Toulouse,
    complaint, the applicant did not have sufficient oppor-             France, Marc Foucher-Créteau, resident in Paris, and Verdier
    tunity to defend itself. Moreover, the in its final decision,       Distribition SARL, whose registered office is in Juvignac,
    the Commission diverged from essential accusations in the           France, represented by Christian Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar,
    heads of complaint without giving the applicant the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    opportunity to amend its position.                                  François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.


title: Case C-522/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Romania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas — Areas designated insufficient in number and size — Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-522/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - Areas designated insufficient in number and size - Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility of the action)
   2011/C 179/06
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania (represented by: A. Popescu, L.-E. Batagoi, M.-L. Colonescu, A.-R. Arșinel and J.S. Smaranda)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Classification as special protection areas of areas insufficient in number and size, failing in part to have regard to the sites identified in the IBA Inventory — Alteration without scientific basis

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen by judgment of that court of 6 June 1995 in the case of N. V. Wiljo v. Belgian State (Case C-178/95)

text:
22 . 7. 95                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 189/13
The Tribunal Administratif, Amiens, seeks a preliminary                   2 . Regard being had to the principle of proportionality,
ruling concerning:                                                            does not the criterion of 'technical suitability for
                                                                              carriage of goods by inland waterway' applied by the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities in its
— the chargeable event for the storage levy provided for by                   decision of 6 May 1993, which makes even vessels
     Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of                    which are not actually used for transport on the linked
     30 June 1981 on the common organization of the                           inland waterway networks of the Member States subject
     markets in the sugar sector ( 1 ), Article 12 of Commission              to the obligation to make a contribution in the
     Regulation ( EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying                    framework of the 'old-for-new' rule, conflict with
     down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for              the objective and purport of Regulation ( EEC )
     sugar ( 2 ) and Article 6 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                  No 1101 /89 ?
     No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 laying down general rules
     for offsetting storage costs for sugar ( 3 ),
                                                                          3 . Regard being had to the aim, the general objective and
— the period in respect of which are payable the                              the specific purport of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89 , is
     elimination levies provided for in Article 32a of Council                a purely theoretical suitability of a vessel for inland
     Regulation (EEC ) No 934/86 of 24 March 1986 on the                      transport, in the sense that it could be made suitable for
     common organization of the market in sugar (4 ) and                      inland transport only after laborious and expensive and
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1914/87 of 2 July 1987,                    therefore economically unrealistic conversion or that
     which introduced a special elimination levy in the sugar                 use of the vessel for inland waterway transport would be
     sector for the 1986/87 marketing year.                                   wholly unprofitable because the vessel is not designed or
                                                                              equipped for inland transport, sufficient for it to be
                                                                              subject to the obligation to make a contribution in the
(M   OJ  No  L  177, 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .                                   framework of the ' old-for-new' rule ?
(2)  OJ  No  L  213 , 23 . 8 . 1978 , p . 5 .
(3)  OJ  No  L  156 , 25 . 6 . 1977, p. 4 .
(4 ) OJ  No  L  87 , 2 . 4 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                          4 . Regard being had to the aim, the general objective and
                                                                              the specific purport of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89
                                                                              can the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 6 May 1993 be regarded as applicable
                                                                              to the mts . 'Smaragd ' since it subjects to the obligation
                                                                              to pay the single contribution in the framework of the
                                                                              'old-for-new' rule a vessel which is especially designed,
                                                                              constructed and equipped as a bunkering vessel with the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van                     exclusive purpose of supplying sea-going ships with fuel
Koophandel te Antwerpen by judgment of that court of                          and is not particularly suitable or intended for carriage
  6 June 1995 in the case of N. V. Wiljo v. Belgian State                     for a third party, or even on own account, of fuel
                             (Case C-1 78/95 )                                products on inland waterways and hence does not
                               ( 95/C 189/26 )                                increase the cargo capacity of shipping or tonnage of
                                                                              inland transport ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
van Koophandel te Antwerpen ( Commercial Court,                           5 . Does not the application by the Commission of the
Antwerp ) of 6 June 1995 , which was received at the Court                    criterion of technical suitability instead of the actual use
Registry on 8 June 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the                      of the vessel constitute an infringement of the
case of N. V. Wiljo v. Belgian State on the following                         prohibition of discrimination since, in accordance with
questions:                                                                    the criterion used by the Commission for vessels
                                                                              operating in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg,
                                                                               Germany and France, the single contribution is due in
                                                                              certain cases although the vessel is not actually used for
 1 . Regard being had to the aim, the general objective and
     the specific purport of Council Regulation ( EEC )                       inland waterway transport and does not therefore
                                                                              contribute to increasing the tonnage of inland waterway
     No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on structural
      improvements in inland waterway transport, does the                     transport, whereas the single contribution on the
     concept 'specialized vessels' in Article 8 ( 3 ) (c ) of the             putting into service of a vessel in the other Member
     Regulation in question refer to vessels which, as a result               States is due only if that is justified by its actual use ( on
                                                                              the network of linked Community waterways ).
      of their specific construction and equipment or of their
      specific use, do not increase the cargo capacity or the
     tonnage of inland waterway transport and are therefore
      not of such a nature as to affect the structural
      over-capacity of carriage of goods on the linked inland
     waterway networks of the Member States ?


title: Case C-399/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others v Freistaat Sachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(2) to (4) — Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out — Review of the project after the site was included in that list — Rules governing that review — Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others v Freistaat Sachsen
   (Case C-399/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(2) to (4) - Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out - Review of the project after the site was included in that list - Rules governing that review - Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives))
   (2016/C 098/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others

      Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen

      Interveners: Landeshauptstadt Dresden, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site, and authorised, following a study that did not meet the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive, before the site in question was included in the list of SCIs must be the subject of a subsequent review, by the competent authorities, of its implications for that site if that review constitutes the only appropriate step for avoiding that the implementation of the plan or project referred to results in deterioration or disturbance that could be significant in view of the objectives of that directive. It is for the referring court to verify whether those conditions are met.

               2.

               Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that if, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a subsequent review of the implications for the site concerned of a plan or project which began to be put in hand after that site was included in the list of SCIs proves necessary, that review must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive. Such a review must take into account all factors existing at the date of that inclusion and all implications arising or likely to arise following the partial or total implementation of the plan or project on the site in question after that date as well.

               3.

               The Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, where a new assessment of the implications for a site carried out in order to rectify errors identified in relation to the prior assessment conducted before the inclusion of that site in the list of SCIs or in relation to the subsequent review under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, even though the plan or project has already been implemented, the requirements of a check made in the context of such a review may be amended on account of the fact that the planning decision approving that plan or project was immediately enforceable, that an application for interim measures had been dismissed and that that dismissal decision was no longer open to appeal. Moreover, that review must take into account the risks of deterioration or disturbance that could be significant, within the meaning of Article 6(2) of that directive, which may have arisen because the plan or project has been carried out.
               Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements of the check made in the context of the review of alternative solutions may not be amended on account of the fact that the plan or project has already been implemented.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-308/05: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/32

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-308/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/66)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2004.


title: Case T-90/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2014  — ONP and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — French market for clinical laboratory tests — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Association of undertakings — Professional body — Subject of the inspection and the enquiry — Conditions for the application of Article 101 TFEU — Infringement by object — Minimum price and barriers to the development of groups of laboratories — Single and continuous infringement — Proof — Errors of assessment of fact and errors of law — Amount of the fine — Section 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2014 — ONP and Others v Commission
   (Case T-90/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - French market for clinical laboratory tests - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Association of undertakings - Professional body - Subject of the inspection and the enquiry - Conditions for the application of Article 101 TFEU - Infringement by object - Minimum price and barriers to the development of groups of laboratories - Single and continuous infringement - Proof - Errors of assessment of fact and errors of law - Amount of the fine - Section 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 034/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ordre national des pharmaciens (ONP) (Paris, France); Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) (Paris); and Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) (Paris) (represented by: O. Saumon, L. Defalque, T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Giolito, B. Mongin and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Labco (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Coppet and B. Dederichs, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8952 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the [TFEU] (Case 39510 — Labco v ONP), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the Ordre national des pharmaciens (ONP), the Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) and the Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8952 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the [TFEU] (Case 39510 — Labco v ONP) at EUR 4,75 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the application for the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and one-tenth of those incurred by the ONP, the CNOP and the CCG;

               4.

               Orders the ONP, the CNOP and the CCG to bear nine-tenths of their own costs;

               5.

               Orders Labco to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.