title: Case C-320/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) — Refusal to register — Earlier trade mark of repute NASDAQ — Figurative sign nasdaq — Use of the earlier mark for goods and services allegedly offered free of charge — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Relevant public)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.
   (Case C-320/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Refusal to register - Earlier trade mark of repute NASDAQ - Figurative sign ‘nasdaq’ - Use of the earlier mark for goods and services allegedly offered free of charge - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Relevant public)
   2009/C 113/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Antartica Srl (represented by: E. Racca and A. Fusillo, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (represented by: J. van Manen and J. Hofhuis, advocaten)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06 Antartica v OHIM by which that Court dismissed as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for registration of the figurative trade mark ‘nasdaq’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28 against Decision R752/2004-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2005 setting aside the Opposition Division’s decision which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘NASDAQ’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Antartica Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-157/98)

text:
C 258/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.8.98
Ð By omitting to make any finding as regards the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     question whether consultation took place between the
     Directorate-General empowered to adopt a decision
     concerning classification and the Directorate-General           Ð Infringement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
     having power to assess the requirements of the service               (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of
     and whether, if such consultation took place, it was                 import or export duties (2), alternatively of Article
     conducted in a proper fashion, that is to say, by                    239(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
     omitting to verify whether or not the appointing                     establishing the Community Customs Code (the
     authority based its decision on incorrect or incomplete              CCC') (3): the Netherlands Government considers that,
     material facts, the Court of First Instance failed to                by applying to the present case the concept of special
     exercise its powers of judicial review in relation to acts           circumstances' within the meaning of Article 13(1) of
     of the appointing authority.                                         Regulation No 1430/79, the Commission has
                                                                          committed a manifest error of assessment. First, the
                                                                          Commission failed to take into account the fact that
Ð The proceedings before the Court of First Instance                      the external Community transit system does not
     were irregular: by informing the appellant that it                   function perfectly and is susceptible to fraud. Second,
     would not take into account the observations made                    the Commission omitted to take into consideration the
     with regard to the judgment in Case T-12/97                          fact that the process of discharging customs
     Barnett (2), which it had itself requested, the Court of             documentation is so time-consuming that, before it
     First Instance misled the appellant as to her legitimate             becomes apparent that fraud is involved, the customs
     expectations. By failing to take cognizance of the                   debt may have risen to a substantial level as a result of
     appellant's observations containing new pleas based                  successive transit operations. In consequence of the
     on matters of fact and law which had emerged in the                  system provided for by the CCC, it frequently happens
     course of the proceedings (consisting of the new case-               in cases of documentary fraud that it does not become
     law established by the Court of First Instance in its                apparent to the declarant that fraud is involved until
     judgment in Barnett), the Court of First Instance                    after 14 months have passed.
     wrongfully omitted to apply Article 48(1) and the first
     and second subparagraphs of Article 48(2) of the
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,              Ð Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
     whereas the appellant's case was precisely the type of               reasons: the contested decision is accompanied by, at
     dispute for which the legislature intended to provide                best, only a summary statement of reasons. The
     by adopting that provision. Similarly, the contested                 Commission has failed to state the extent to which, as
     order failed to apply the third subparagraph of                      a result of the defects in the operation of the external
     Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of              Community transit system and the impracticability of
     First Instance.                                                      checking within a reasonable time that customs
                                                                          formalities have been properly completed, or of
                                                                          adopting measures to limit the loss, liability for the
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Judgment of 5.11.1997, OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 17.                 whole or part of the customs debt cannot be imposed
                                                                          on the customs agent.
                                                                     (1) Decision of the Commission establishing that remission of
                                                                         import duties pursuant to Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 is not justified in a specific
                                                                         case.
Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the                (2) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                       (Case C-157/98)
                        (98/C 258/25)
                                                                     Appeal brought on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of
An action against the Commission of the European                     the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra             T-42/96 between Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the
and Corinna Wissels, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,             United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
The Hague, acting as Agents.                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-163/98 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 258/26)
annul the decision of the Commission (1), communicated
to the Netherlands Government by notice of 19 February               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
1998, and order the Commission to pay the costs.                     1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-38/06: Action brought on  23 January 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/31

         Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-38/06)
   (2006/C 74/57)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the memorandum of the Commission, Directorate-General of Regional Policy, No 11877 of 10 November 2005 — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning PEP Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Request for Payment No 2005 2716;

               —

               annul the memorandum of the Commission, Directorate-General of Regional Policy, No 12362 of 18 November 2005 — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning SPD Ob 2 — Lazio 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009) — Request for Payment No SYSFIN 20052707 Adonis 2005 23064 letter of the Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze of 26 October — Protocol number 0031966;

               —

               annul the memorandum of the Commission, Directorate-General of Regional Policy, No 12363 of 18 November 2005 — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning PEP Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 007) — Request for Payment No 2005 2871;

               —

               annul all connected and preliminary measures;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those set out in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1)

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23. 10. 2004, p. 55.


title: Case T-533/12: Action brought on 7 December 2012 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/19

         Action brought on 7 December 2012 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)
   (Case T-533/12)
   2013/C 46/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IBSolution GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IBS AB (Solna, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action to be well founded;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2012 in case R 771/2011-2;

               —

               Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2012 in case R 771/2011-2, by granting registration of the trade mark applied for; 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 word mark ‘IBSolution’, for services in classes 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8421877

      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: Community trade mark registration No 38729 of the figurative mark ‘IBS’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-605/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Welmory Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Welmory Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
   (Case C-605/12)
   2013/C 79/15
   Language of the case: Polish

      Requesting court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Welmory Sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

      Question referred

   For the purposes of the taxation of services supplied by company A, which is established in Poland, to company B, which is established in another Member State of the European Union, in circumstances where company B carries out its economic activity by making use of company A’s infrastructure, is the fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) situated in the place in which company A is established?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-171/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Trayan Beshkov

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Trayan Beshkov
   (Case C-171/16)
   (2016/C 200/17)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski Rayonen Sad

      Party to the main proceedings

   Trayan Beshkov

      Questions referred

               1.

               How must the expression ‘new criminal proceedings’ used in Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted, and must that expression necessarily be connected with a finding of guilt in respect of an offence committed or can it also relate to proceedings in which, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed in an earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately?

               2.

               Must Article 3(1), read in conjunction with recital 13, of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as permitting national rules which provide that proceedings in which an earlier judgment delivered in another Member State must be taken into account may not be initiated by the sentenced person but only by the Member State in which the earlier judgment was delivered or by the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place?

               3.

               Must Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place may not change the manner of execution of the penalty imposed by the Member State which issued the earlier sentence, including in the event that, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed by the earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately?


title: Case T-95/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Cindu Chemicals and others v ECHA

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/65

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Cindu Chemicals and others v ECHA
   (Case T-95/10)
   2010/C 113/97
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Cindu Chemicals BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)
   Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene low;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil, anthracene low (CAS Number 90640-82-7) (‘anthracene oil (low)’) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.
   On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil (low) was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic, mutagenic and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.
   The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application which are identical to those raised in Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Action brought on 16 March 1995 by Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcantara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-83/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 137/31
Action brought on 16 March 1995 by Associagao dos                      ( b ) The Commission's approval of the concerned national
Refinadores de Agucar Portugueses ( ARAP), Alcantara                          aid schemes has been given without initiating the
Refinarias — A^ucares SA and RAR Refinarias de Agucar                         procedure provided for by Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC
Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European                            Treaty. The lack of transparency and publicity has led
                             Communities                                      to an illegal approval of State aid schemes, contrary to
                          ( Case T-83/95 )                                    Article 92 of the EC Treaty and the objectives of the
                                                                              common agricultural policy.
                            ( 95/C 137/70 )
                 (Language of the case: English)                       ( c ) The decision not to initiate the procedure provided for
                                                                              by Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty cannot be based on
                                                                              Commission Decision 90/342/EC and 94/ 173 /EC .
An action against the Commission of the European                              These Decisions are illegal as far as the Commission
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             thereby approved State aid for the establishment of a
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995                         beet sugar factory in Portugal, excluded the application
by Associa^ao dos Refinadores de A^ucar Portugueses                           of Articles 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty in such a case
( ARAP ), Alcantara Refinarias — A^ucares SA and RAR                          and/or deprived itself of the application of the
Refinarias de A^ucar Reunidas SA, represented by Mr                           procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC
Gerard van der Wal with an address for service in
                                                                              Treaty.
Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31 ,
Grand-Rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.
                                                                       The applicants consider that the Commission's decision that
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty does not apply to the
                                                                       individual national application of an approved general aid
— declare the application admissible ,                                  scheme such as SIBR and Decree law No 95/90 is illegal and
                                                                       wrong. Even if the approval of the general aid schemes is
                                                                        legally valid , the Portuguese authorities are still obliged to
— declare the Commission's decision of 9 January 1995                   notify ( Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty ) and the Commission
      ( IV/002141 ) void , and                                          should initiate the procedure provided for by Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                        of the EC Treaty as requested by the applicants on the
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                          following grounds :
      applicants .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     ( a ) The aid granted to DAI surpasses the terms and limits of
                                                                               the approved national aid schemes .
The applicants made a formal complaint to the Commission
requesting the Commission to initiate the procedure
 provided for by Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty concerning           ( b ) Member States are obliged to notify under
 the State aid granted by the Portuguese government to DAI                     Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty the individual
 ( Sociedade de desinvolvemento Agro-Industrial ) for the                      applications of general aid schemes previously
 establishment of a beet sugar factory. On 12 December                         approved by the Commission in case the individual
 1994, the Commission decided not to initiate the procedure                    grant of aid goes beyond a simple measure of
 nor to take the other measures requested on the ground that                   application to which different criteria are applicable
 the aid would be granted on the basis of national                             than to the approved general scheme, such an
 aid-schemes approved by the Commission under Articles 92                      application in the agricultural sector and or a sector
 and 93 of the Treaty .                                                        characterized by overcapacity. This is clearly and
                                                                               specially the case for the sugar sector .
 The applicants maintain that the Commission's approval of
 the Portuguese national aid schemes laid down in the SIBR
 and Decree law No 95 /90 of 20 March 1990 — to which                   Finally, the applicants emphasize that the State aid to DAI
 approval the Commission refers in its decision — is illegal            and the Commission's decision not to take the measures and
 for several reasons :                                                  initiate the procedure requested for by them is contrary to
                                                                        the Multilateral Agreements on Trade ( more specifically the
 ( a ) The Commission did not impose the adequate                       Agreement on Agriculture ) and results in a violation of
                                                                        Article 213 of the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention .
         conditions on the Portuguese authorities to enable the
         individual applications of the approved aid schemes to
         be analysed within the procedural framework and
         guarantees laid down in Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC
         Treaty and the case law. The Commission did not
         provide for the necessary control on sectoral
         consequences of the approved schemes .


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 2004 in Case C-192/03 P: Alcon Inc. against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Appeal — Community mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Nullity of the Community mark — Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94 — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 — Word mark‘BSS’)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 5 October 2004
   in Case C-192/03 P: Alcon Inc. against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (1)

   (Appeal - Community mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Nullity of the Community mark - Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94 - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Word mark ‘BSS’)
   (2005/C 6/41)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-192/03P: Alcon Inc., formerly Alcon Universal Ltd, established in Hünenberg (Switzerland) (lawyers: C. Morcom, QC, and S. Clark), the other parties to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and A. Sesma Merino) and Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH, established in Olching (Germany) (lawyer: S. Schneller) – appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 2 May 2003 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, has given an order on 5 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Alcon Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-572/10: Action brought on 21 December 2010 — Commission v Commune de Millau

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/19

         Action brought on 21 December 2010 — Commission v Commune de Millau
   (Case T-572/10)
   2011/C 72/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, Agent, and E. Bouttier, avocat)

      Defendant: Commune de Millau (Millau, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the Commune de Millau (municipality of Millau) is jointly and severally liable for the undertakings made by, and the debts of, the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (the Aveyron semi-public installations company) (SEMEA) with respect to the European Commission;

               —

               order the Commune de Millau to pay jointly and severally with SEMEA to the applicant the principal sum of EUR 41 012, plus interest outstanding since 10 March 1992 or, in the alternative, from 27 April 1993;

               —

               order the capitalisation of interest;

               —

               order the Commune de Millau to pay jointly and severally with SEMEA the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of SEMEA's wrongful obstruction of legal process;

               —

               order the Commune de Millau to pay jointly and severally with SEMEA the costs of the present case;

               —

               order the joining of the present case with Case T-168/10 Commission v SEMEA

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are identical to those advanced in Case T-168/10 Commission v SEMEA, (1) the Commission claiming furthermore that the Commune de Millau is jointly and severally liable for repayment of SEMEA's debt, in so far as the Commune de Millau took over SEMEA's assets and liabilities, including the contract concluded between SEMEA and the Commission which forms the basis of the dispute.

      (1)  OJ 2010 C 161, p. 48.


title: Case T-84/99: Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando against the European Parliament

text:
5.6.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 160/31
— breach of legitimate expectations and the principles of                 Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi
    legal certainty and of proper publication of measures in                             against the European Parliament
    that amendment of 13 September 1995 had not been
    brought to the notice of the Members concerned. In this
                                                                                (Case T-85/99)
    connection, the applicant also alleges infringement of
    article 27 (1) of the Rules Governing the Payment of
    Expense and Allowances to Members,                                                            (1999/C 160/57)
— breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as may be
    seen from a comparison between the applicant’s position                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
    and that of colleagues sitting in the national parliament or
    that of Italian Members who have taken their seats during
    the current parliamentary term.                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi, represented by Wilma
Lastly the applicant pleads breach of the requirement to state            Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
reasons, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
and of the principle of proper administration.                            of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                                                                              holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                              period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando                            III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
               against the European Parliament                                Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                              the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                              300761, rejecting Mr Gastone Parigi’s request for the
                         (Case T-84/99)
                                                                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                              to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
                        (1999/C 160/56)                                       the current parliamentary term,
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            proceedings.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Pleas in law and main arguments
13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando represented by Wilma
Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                          raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.
of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
    holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
    period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
    III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
    Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of               Action brought on 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas
    the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No                            against the European Parliament
    300763, rejecting Mr Leoluca Orlando’s request for the
    provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex                                       (Case T-88/99)
    to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
    the current parliamentary term,
                                                                                (1999/C 160/58)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
    proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas, an official of the
raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.                       European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          Professor Kharis Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Véronique
                                                                          Duhaubois, 139, rue Schetzel, L-2518 Luxembourg.


title: Case T-159/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Air France v OHMI (Parallelogram shape) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing the shape of a parallelogram — Absolute ground of refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Air France v OHMI (Parallelogram shape)
   (Case T-159/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing the shape of a parallelogram - Absolute ground of refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Air France (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2010 (Case R 1018/2009-2) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a parallelogram as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Air France to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-186/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Ashoka v OHIM (DREAM IT, DO IT!) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/51

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Ashoka v OHIM (DREAM IT, DO IT!)
   (Case T-186/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ashoka, (Arlington, Virginia, United States of America), represented by: A. Link and A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2007 (Case R 635/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ashoka to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-346/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Bank Tejarat v Council

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/62

         Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Bank Tejarat v Council
   (Case T-346/15)
   (2015/C 302/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 101), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs for this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of article 266 TFEU

                           —

                           The contested measures are in violation of Article 266 TFEU because the Council has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case T-176/12.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of res judicata

                           —

                           The contested measures violate the principles of res judicata and/or legal certainty and/or finality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to effective judicial protection

                           —

                           The enactment of the contested measures violates the principle of effectiveness, the right to effective judicial protection, and the applicant’s rights under Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or under Article 6 and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they set at naught the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-176/12.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights to good administration

                           —

                           The contested measures violate the applicant’s rights to good administration, as the applicant has not been treated either impartially or fairly by the Council.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to the respect of reputation and the right of property:

                           —

                           The contested measures violate the Applicant’s rights under Article 7 and 17 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights and/or Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and/or the principle of proportionality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reason

                           —

                           The Council has failed to give adequate reasons for the contested measures, and the applicant was unable to respond properly the allegation of the Council.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The substantive criteria for designation are in any event not met and the Council has committed a manifest error of assessment by the enactment of the contested measures in that the allegations in the statement of reasons are false and the criteria for designation not met.


               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/27

         (2006/C 22/54)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

      OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

      OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

      OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

      OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

      OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-132/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíroság (Hungarian Republic) lodged on 2 April 2008 — LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíroság (Hungarian Republic) lodged on 2 April 2008 — LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa
   (Case C-132/08)
   (2008/C 183/14)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Bíroság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 8 of Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that no obligations apart from those concerning the free movement of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment (‘equipment’) in the directive may be laid down as regards the marketing of equipment which falls within the scope of the directive and which has had the CE mark affixed by its producer, established in another Member State?

               2.

               Can Article 2(e) and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted, as regards obligations relating to marketing, as meaning that an entity may also be regarded as a producer if it markets equipment in a Member State (without being involved in the manufacture of the equipment) and is established in a Member State other than the one where the producer is established?

               3.

               Can Article 2(e)(i), (ii) and (iii), and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the distributor of equipment manufactured in another Member State (who is not the same person as the producer) can be required to issue a declaration of conformity setting out the technical data relating to the equipment?

               4.

               Can Article 2(e)(i), (ii) and (iii), and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that an entity which carries out only distribution in one Member State and is established in that State, must also be regarded as the producer of the distributed equipment where the activity of the distributor does not affect the safety characteristics of the equipment?

               5.

               Can Article 2(f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the distributor as defined in the directive can be required to fulfil the obligations which under the directive are required only of the producer as defined in Article 2(e), such as the issuing of a declaration of conformity as regards technical conditions?

               6.

               Can Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC) and the so-called mandatory requirements justify an exception to the application of the Dassonville formula, having regard to the principles of equivalence and mutual recognition?

               7.

               Can Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC) be interpreted as meaning that trade in and import of goods in transit cannot be restricted for any reason other than those listed there?

               8.

               Is the CE mark sufficient to satisfy the principle of equivalence or the principle of mutual recognition and the conditions of Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC)?

               9.

               Can the CE mark be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not justified in applying any other technical provisions or provisions regarding quality to equipment bearing the mark?

               10.

               Can the provisions of Article 6(1) and of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of marketing of goods, the producer and the distributor can be considered to be subject to the same obligations, where the producer does not market the products?

      (1)  Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10).

      (2)  Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ 2002 L 11, p. 4).


title: Case T -275/04: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber of  15 March 2006  — Aries Meca v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber of 15 March 2006 — Aries Meca v Commission
   (Case T -275/04) (1)

   (2006/C 108/53)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 28 January 1999 in Case C-181/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Georg Wilkens v. Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (Additional milk levy - Special reference quantity - Non-marketing and conversion undertaking - Obligations - Failure to fulfil - Withdrawal of the conversion premium - Retroactive annulment of a quota allocation)

text:
C 86/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.3.1999
Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
M. Braguglia)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 January 1999
Ð     application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
     within the prescribed time-limits, the laws, regulations       in Case C-181/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply              the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Georg Wilkens v. Land-
     with                                                                         wirtschaftskammer Hannover (1)
                                                                    (Additional milk levy Ð Special reference quantity Ð
Ð Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on                Non-marketing       and      conversion      undertaking     Ð
     the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or          Obligations Ð Failure to fulfil Ð Withdrawal of the
     killing (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21)                          conversion premium Ð Retroactive annulment of a quota
                                                                                allocation)
Ð Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July 1994 amending                                       (1999/C 86/07)
     Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting
     intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine
     (OJ L 201, 4.8.1994, p. 26)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
Ð Commission Directive 94/16/EC of 22 April 1994
     amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on undesirable              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     substances and products in animal nutrition (OJ L 104,                  published in the European Court Reports)
     23.4.1994, p. 32), and
                                                                    In Case C-181/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December 1993                   of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht for a
     amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     health inspections and controls of fresh meat and              court between Georg Wilkens and Landwirtschaftskammer
     poultry meat (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15)                     Hannover, third party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundes-
                                                                    verwaltungsgericht Ð on the interpretation and validity of
                                                                    the second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Council
or in any event by failing to notify such provisions to the         Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
obligations under those directives Ð the Court (Fourth              Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the           milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as
Chamber, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (OJ
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,           L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35), Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
gave a judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it declared            composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the
that:                                                               Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. LeÂger,
                                                                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January
1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limits,
                                                                    1999, in which it has ruled:
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
     necessary to comply with
                                                                    The second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Council
     Ð Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July 1994                   Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
          amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health                   general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
          problems affecting intra-Community trade in               Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
          bovine animals and swine, and                             milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation
                                                                    (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, is to be interpreted
     Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                   as meaning that a producer who has had entitlement to
          1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the                  the non-marketing or conversion premium granted under
          financing of health inspections and controls of           Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977
          fresh meat and poultry meat,                              introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing
                                                                    of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy
                                                                    herds withdrawn as a result of an alleged failure to
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations      comply with his undertaking not to market milk or milk
     under those directives.                                        products is to receive a special reference quantity in due
                                                                    proportion to his compliance with and performance of
                                                                    that undertaking.
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: Case C-496/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro (Italy) lodged on 15 October 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro (Italy) lodged on 15 October 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello
   (Case C-496/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro

      Party to the main proceedings

   Aldo Patriciello

      Question referred

   Do the facts construed in abstracto as a criminal offence committed by Aldo Patriciello (a Member of the European Parliament, described in the indictment and in favour of whom the European Parliament adopted a decision on 5 May 2009 to defend immunity), categorised as insulting behaviour under Article 594 of the Penal Code, correspond to the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties for the purposes of Article 9 of the Protocol?


title: Case T-394/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — KPN v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/67

         Action brought on 17 July 2015 — KPN v Commission
   (Case T-394/15)
   (2015/C 302/83)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: KPN BV (Den Haag, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and C. van der Hoeven, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission decision C (2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement (Case M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo), and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in that the Commission committed a manifest error in the assessment of the vertical effects of the concentration on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission failed to state its reasons for not assessing the possible vertical anti-competitive effects on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the Decision with respect to the role and influence of Mr Malone in other undertakings active on the same markets.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case C-216/00: Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 233/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 2.    If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
hof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case                            can the first indent of the third subparagraph of Artic-
of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction                              le 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1) be interpreted as
               Company Baumanagement GmbH                                       meaning that false information provided in good faith by
                                                                                the refund applicant on the basis of inaccurate data
                          (Case C-208/00)                                       supplied by the manufacturer constitutes in principle a
                                                                                case of force majeure where the applicant could not
                                                                                establish that it was false or could do so only by means
                          (2000/C 233/29)                                       of cheeks at the undertaking in which the goods were
                                                                                manufactured?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 30 March 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
the case of Überseering v NCC Nordic Construction Company
Baumanagement GmbH on the following questions:
1.    Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning
      that it is contrary to the right to freedom of establishment
      of companies if the legal capacity and capacity to bring
      legal proceedings of a company validly incorporated
      under the law of one Member State are determined
      according to the law of another State to which the
      company has moved its actual centre of administration
      and the law of that second State no longer allows the
      company to bring legal proceedings there in respect of
      claims based on contract?                                           Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
2.    If the Court’s answer to that question is yes:
      Does the right to freedom of establishment of companies                                      (Case C-216/00)
      (Articles 43 and 48 EC) mean that a company’s legal
      capacity and capacity to bring legal proceedings must be
      determined according to the law of the State where the
      company is incorporated?                                                                     (2000/C 233/31)
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                   expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for
hof by order of 4 April 2000 in the case of Käserei                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          Hamburg-Jonas
                          (Case C-210/00)                                 The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 233/30)
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
                                                                                Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
European Communities by order of 4 April 2000 by the                            comply fully with Article 3 of European Parliament
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997
at the Court Registry on 26 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling                  amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
in the case of Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co.                         93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures
KG v Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas                      for the award of public service contracts, public supply
on the following questions:                                                     contracts and public works contracts respectively, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 valid in                  the EC Treaty;
      so far as it provides for a penalty even where, through no
      fault of his own, an exporter has applied for an export
      refund exceeding that applicable?                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                                (Case C-220/00)
paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
and to communicate those measures immediately to the                                              (2000/C 233/33)
Commission. That period expired on 13 October 1998 wi-
thout the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
into national law.                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Miguel
(1) OJ L 328, 28.11.1997, p. 1.                                          Franga, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Vicenza, First Chamber, by order of that court of 25 May                 —     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
2000, in the case of CISAL di Battistello Venanzio &                           within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                           C. Sas v INAIL                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 98/55/EC (1) of 17 July 1998 amending
                          (Case C-218/00)                                      Directive 93/75/EEC (2) concerning minimum require-
                                                                               ments for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports
                                                                               and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, within the
                          (2000/C 233/32)
                                                                               period prescribed by Article 2(1) of that directive, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                           paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
Vicenza (District Court, Vicenza), First Chamber, of 25 May                    Article 2(1) of the directive; and
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of CISAL di
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v INAIL on the following                   —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
questions:                                                                     the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               those provisions;
‘Does a public not-for-profit insurance body, such as the
INAIL, to which is entrusted, on the basis of sound economic
and business practice, the operation as a monopoly of a                  —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
scheme of insurance against risks deriving from accidents at
work and occupational diseases based on a system of compul-
sory registration, which pays out benefits on a partially
automatic basis (which provides insurance cover for employ-              Pleas in law and main arguments
ees, but not for self-employed persons — as from 1998) even
in the event of non-payment of premiums by the employer,
and calculates the premiums on the basis of the risk categories          The mandatory nature of the provisions of the first paragraph
to which the insured work is assigned, constitute an underta-            of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC
king within the meaning of Article 81 et seq. of the Treaty?             Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the fact      to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                         law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
that the abovementioned public entity calls for the payment of           That period, which is laid down in Article 2 of the directive,
premiums even where the person concerned, a self-employed                expired on 31 December 1998 without Portugal having
person (craftsman), is already insured with a private company            brought into force the necessary provisions.
against the same risks in respect of which he would be covered
through affiliation to the abovementioned body constitute an
                                                                         (1) OJ C 1998 L 215, p. 65.
infringement of Articles 86 and 82 EC?’                                  (2) OJ 1993 L 247, p. 19.


               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/2

         Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
   (2008/C 116/02)
   At its meeting of 12 February 2008, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, designated, for the period from 1 March to 6 October 2008, the Third Chamber of the Court as being the Chamber which, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, is to be responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules.


title: Case C-335/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC) — Directive 75/117/EEC — Equal pay for men and women — Article 1 — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to improve the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 11(2)(b) and Article 11(3) — National law providing for an allowance for ordinary magistrates in respect of expenses which they incur in the performance of their professional functions — No entitlement for an ordinary magistrate to that allowance in the case of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/23

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero
   (Case C-335/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC) - Directive 75/117/EEC - Equal pay for men and women - Article 1 - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to improve the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 11(2)(b) and Article 11(3) - National law providing for an allowance for ordinary magistrates in respect of expenses which they incur in the performance of their professional functions - No entitlement for an ordinary magistrate to that allowance in the case of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005))
   (2016/C 335/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC), Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, and Article 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted, in a situation where the Member State concerned did not provide for the maintenance of all the elements of pay to which an ordinary magistrate was entitled before her maternity leave, as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of a period of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005, an ordinary magistrate is not entitled to receive an allowance in respect of costs that ordinary magistrates incur in the performance of their professional functions, provided that that worker received, during that period, an income in an amount at least equivalent to that of the benefit provided for under national social security legislation which she would have received in the event of a break in her activities on grounds connected with her state of health, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Removal from the register of T-31/96

text:
21 . 12 . 96          I EN I              Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Removal from the register of T-31/96 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/21
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision                          (Language of the case: French)
dated 1 December 1995 and notified on 27 December
1995 by which he was assigned non-active status,                     By order of 6 November 1996 the President of the Third
backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted the                        Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Regulations. By way of subsequent related decisions, he              removal from the register of Case T-31/96 : Credit
also contests the decision, notified by letter of 21 February        Lyonnais v. Commission of the European ' Communities.
1996 , to withhold Lfrs 71 484 from the allowance granted
pursuant to Article 41 of the Staff Regulations and the              (!) OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
related decision to stop, with effect from 1 December
1995 , the remuneration and allowances to which he is
entitled .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-70/96 (')
The applicant argues in the first place in support of his                                         96/C 388/22 )
claims that Articles 25 and 41 of the Staff Regulations
have been infringed. He contends that, under the principle                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
of legal certainty of legal situations, the starting point of a      By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
Community measure may not be set at a date prior to its              Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
publication. As far as the matter at issue is concerned, late        European Communities has ordered the removal from the
notification of assignment to non-active status prevents             register of Case T-70/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
the appointing authority from considering the official's             Ensino Particular, Limitada          v.    Commission of the
priority for reinstatement in any post of his grade which            European Communities.
may fall vacant or be created and for which he has the
necessary qualifications .                                           (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
In addition, the statement of reasons of the contested
decision does not enable either the applicant or the Court
of First Instance to check whether the budgetary authority
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-72/96 (*)
extended the possibilities for the application of Article 41
of the Staff Regulations to the 1996 financial year in                                          ( 96/C 388/23
accordance with the rules set out in Article 220 et seq. of                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
the EC Treaty.
                                                                     By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
                                                                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
In his application, the applicant also claims that there has         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
been an infringement of the duty to have regard to                   register of Case T-72/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
officials ' interest.                                                Ensino Particular, Limitada v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities.
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case F-55/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of  16 May 2006  — Voigt v Commission (Officials — Occupational disease — Absence of a decision adversely affecting the applicant — Premature application — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/23

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 May 2006 — Voigt v Commission
   (Case F-55/05) (1)

   (Officials - Occupational disease - Absence of a decision adversely affecting the applicant - Premature application - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 154/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eric Voigt (Orange, France) (represented by: B. Autric, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, assisted by F. Longfils, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application, first, for recognition of the occupational origin of the disease from which the applicant is suffering and, second, damages for the harm which he claims to have sustained
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay half of those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under No T-258/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-261/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2010 — Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano v Gerardo García, S.L.

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2010 — Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano v Gerardo García, S.L.
   (Case C-261/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano

      Defendant: Gerardo García, S.L.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 3, 5(2), 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/10/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) fulfils the obligations to take preventive measures laid down in that Directive in respect of physical working conditions by providing those workers with hearing protectors so that, with the level of attenuation provided by those protectors, the workers’ daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dbA?

               2.

               Is Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/10/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘programme of technical and/or organisational measures’ which must be adopted by a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) is intended to reduce the noise exposure level to below 85 dbA?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative, does Directive 2003/10/EC preclude a national rule or judicial approach which exempts a company from making a monetary payment, which in principle it must pay to workers affected by daily noise exposure levels of over 85 dbA, because the company has provided those workers with hearing protectors whose attenuating effect causes daily exposure to remain under 80 dbA?

      (1)  Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) (Seventeenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 2003 L 42, p. 38).


title: Case T-468/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/26

         Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission
   (Case T-468/16)
   (2016/C 371/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verein Deutsche Sprache eV (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General in the name of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 10 June 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(3) TEU, Article 11(2) TEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) — no open and transparent dialogue

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the decision disregards the applicant’s unmistakeable intention in the application for access to documents to gain a comprehensive insight in the process which led to the decision on the redesigning of the press room in the Commission’s Berlaymont building with a reduction of languages to English and French. Only a few documents were produced that mainly included formalities but did not give information about the author and reasons of the decision.
                           The Commission does not, in the contested decision, go into details on the document sources referred to by the applicant, keeps the reasons for the refusal of access private and thereby infringes the duty arising from Article 10(3) TEU and further EU legislation to take decisions as openly and as closely to the citizen as possible and to explain the reasons.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the Commission fails to comply with its obligation under Article 11(2) TEU to maintain an open and transparent dialogue with representative associations, inasmuch as it ignores the association’s concerns, fails to make documents available and provides insufficient information on its reasons for withholding documents.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — partially refused access to documents

                           —

                           In the context of the second plea, the applicant maintains that the non-observance of essential parts of the application infringes the EU principle of transparency.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the Commission, in its decision, incorrectly decided that a particular document could not be made available on grounds of data protection, without specifying that document or describing the content and without providing adequate reasons for that decision.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-118/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — LDC Argentina v Council

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/23

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — LDC Argentina v Council
   (Case T-118/14)
   2014/C 151/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LDC Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

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


title: Case C-262/07: Order of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 — Classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/17

         Order of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-262/07) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 - Classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 128/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Tokai Europe GmbH (represented by: G. Kroemer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Schønberg and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 Tokai Europe v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21) — Requirement to be individually concerned by the contested regulation — Right to a fair hearing
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Tokai Europe GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


28.8.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/45
In the applicant’s view, Directive 92/12/EEC is contrary to:                   Removal from the register of Case T-538/93 (1)
— the Community principle of the rule of law, inasmuch as
    it contains contradictory and unclear rules;                                               (1999/C 246/90)
— the Treaty objectives in the establishment of the internal
    market under Article 14 EC (ex Article 7a);                                           (Language of the case: English)
— the prohibition under Article 25 EC (ex Article 12) of
    customs duties and charges having equivalent effect;                By order of 30 March 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance
— the prohibitions under Article 28 EC (ex Article 30) and              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    Article 29 EC (ex Article 34);                                      the register of Case T-538/93: Joh Harris v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
— Article 93 EC (ex Article 99), authorising harmonisation              ties.
    of indirect taxation;
— the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as it is not
                                                                        (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
    suited to the internal market;
— the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;
— a series of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as
    freedom to exercise a profession, right of ownership, and
    commercial and economic freedom.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-548/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/91)
       Removal from the register of Case T-278/93 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/88)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)                       By order of 1 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                        Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Fourth                   European Communities has ordered the removal from the
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance            register of Case T-548/93: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Council of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the European Communities.
the register of Case T-278/93: David Alwyn Jones and
Mary Bridget Jones v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
(1) OJ C 165 of 2.7.1992.
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases                              Removal from the register of Case T-72/95 (1)
            T-294/934, T-392/93 and T-413/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/92)
                        (1999/C 246/89)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 30 March 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance            By order of 17 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the register of Cases T-294/93: Sean Coughlan v Council                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-72/95:
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v
Communities and T-413/93: Patrick Heffernan v Council of                Commission of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.
(1) OJ C 158 of 10.6.1993 and C 197 of 21.7.1993.