title: Case C-467/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 December 2002 in the administrative-law proceedings between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
C 70/2                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
(Federal Social Court) of 30 October 2002, received at the             2.    Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary                        exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
ruling in the case of Karin Bautz against AOK (Allgemeine                    388/EEC?
Ortskrankenkasse — General Local Health Insurance Fund)
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is it compatible with the provisions of Articles 49 and 50
     EC for a Member State which has organised its sickness
     insurance system in accordance with the principle of
     benefits in kind, and which provides outpatient medical
     care through authorised medical practitioners, to permit
     the reimbursement of the cost of consulting unauthorised          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     medical practitioners — also where treatment is provided          gericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 December
     in another Member State — only if treatment correspond-           2002 in the administrative-law proceedings between Inan
     ing to the generally accepted state of medical knowledge                     Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg
     is not available under the system of benefits in kind?
                                                                                (Case C-467/02)
2.   If this is deemed to be an inadmissible impediment to the
     freedom to provide services, do the aforementioned                                          (2003/C 70/05)
     provisions of the EC Treaty permit German law to make
     the reimbursement of the cost of privately obtained
     medical services conditional — except in emergencies —
     on a prior application being made for a decision by the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sickness insurance fund as to entitlement to extra-               European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
     contractual treatment?                                            Stuttgart (Administrative Court) of 19 December 2002,
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2002, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the administrative-law proceedings
                                                                       between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       1.    Does a child born in Germany to a Turkish worker who
                                                                             belongs to the regular labour force fall within the scope
                                                                             of Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                             Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                      development of the Association (‘Decision No 1/80’)
hof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the                         where from his birth to at least the time he attained the
  case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis                      age of majority his residence was permitted initially solely
                                                                             for the reason of family unity or, where his residence
                                                                             permit was temporary, was not terminated solely for that
                        (Case C-462/02)                                      reason?
                                                                       2.    Is Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 the only basis upon
                         (2003/C 70/04)                                      which the right of a family member to access to the
                                                                             employment market and to an extension of residence
                                                                             under the second indent of Article 7(1) may be limited?
                                                                       3.    Does the imposition of three years’ juvenile sentence
                                                                             constitute the definitive removal of the person concerned
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             from the labour force such that he loses his rights under
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                             the second indent of Article 7(1) even if there is a real
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                             possibility that only part of the sentence will require to
Court Registry on 23 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             be served, albeit that if released early on licence the
in the case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis
                                                                             person will be required to submit to treatment for drug
on the following questions:
                                                                             abuse and during the period of that treatment will not be
                                                                             available for employment on the market?
1.   Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1) prohibit
     a Member State from making the organisation of a card             4.    Where it results from a short period of imprisonment
     game subject to value added tax solely if the organisation              which is not suspended for probation, does the loss of a
     of a card game by a licensed public casino is exempt, or                job or, where the person concerned is unemployed, the
     must card games organised outside casinos also be                       impossibility of applying for a job constitute voluntary
     comparable for that purpose in essential respects, for                  unemployment within the meaning of the second sen-
     example as regards the game rules, the maximum stake                    tence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 and therefore
     and the maximum winnings, with card games in the                        not prevent the loss of the rights conferred by Article 6(1)
     casinos?                                                                and Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80?
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/3
5.   Does this apply also where it may be assumed that the              Pleas in law and main arguments
     person will be released after an insignificant, reasonable
     time, but must then submit to treatment for drug abuse             —     Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/
     and will not be able to take up employment until he has                  94; the trade mark applied for, ‘MATRATZEN markt
     completed additional school education?                                   CONCORD’, which consists of three words and a figurat-
                                                                              ive element, and the opposing earlier trade mark, ‘Matrat-
6.   Is Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as                zen’, are not similar, but completely different. The Court
     meaning that the court requires to take into account a                   of First Instance did not base its assessment on the overall
     change in circumstances which occurs after the most                      impression created by the marks and thus failed to have
     recent administrative decision and which is favourable to                regard to the principles established in the judgment of
     the person concerned such that it would preclude the                     the Court of Justice in Case C-251/95 (SABEL). The
     application of any of the limitations in Article 14 of                   finding that the word ‘MATRATZEN’ alone is the domi-
     Decision No 1/80?                                                        nant feature of the trade mark applied for is contrary to
                                                                              the rules of logic and to experience.
                                                                        —     Breach of the principle of the free movement of goods
                                                                              (Articles 28 and 30 EC); the opposition based on the
                                                                              earlier mark is an abuse of a formal legal position. This
                                                                              was not sufficiently assessed by the Court of First Instance.
Appeal brought on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen Concord
GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, against the
judgment delivered on 23 October 2002 by the Fourth                     (1 ) OJ 2003 C 19.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen Concord
GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                         and Designs)
                        (Case C-3/03 P)
                                                                        Appeal brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission
                        (2003/C 70/06)                                  of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                        ered on 25 October 2002 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        case T-5/02 between Tetra Laval BV and the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2002                              of the European Communities
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen
Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the                                             (Case C-12/03 P)
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen                                               (2003/C 70/07)
Concord GmbH, represented by Dr Wolf-W. Wodrich,
Rechtsanwalt, Huyssenallee 58-64, D-45128 Essen, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, assisted by Patentanwälte
Zenz, Helber, Hosbach & Partner, Huyssenallee 58-64, D-                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 October 2002
45128 Essen.                                                            by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in case T-5/02 (1) between Tetra Laval
                                                                        BV and the Commission of the European Communities,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the
—    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           European Communities, represented by Michel Petite, Anthony
     the European Communities of 23 October 2002 in Case                Whelan and Per Hellström, acting as agents, with an address
     T-6/01 ( 1),                                                       for service in Luxembourg.
—    reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings
     before the Board of Appeal of 21 April 1998 (OHIM ref.:
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
     B 32 500),
—    order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings                  —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the                       25 October 2002 in case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV v
     proceedings before the Opposition Division and before                    Commission;
     the Board of Appeal of OHIM, as well as the costs of the
     proceedings on the action and on this appeal.                      —     order Tetra Laval BV to pay the Commission’s costs.


title: Case T-175/01: Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/27
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:          Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de
                                                                       Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);
                                                                                (Case T-175/01)
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Applicant for the Com-        the applicant                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
munity mark:                                                           European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
                                                                       a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
                                                                       by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
Trade mark applied for:       ‘Silk Cocoon’ for goods in
                              Class 25 (clothing) — Application
                              No 551903                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Holder of the rights in       Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for-       —     annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
the mark or sign relied       merly La Redoute SA)                           Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
on in the opposition                                                         notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
proceedings:
                                                                       —     annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Opposed mark or sign:         the French and international word              Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
                              mark ‘Cocoon’ for goods in                     notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
                              Class 25
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Decision of the Oppo-         dismissal of the opposition
sition Division:
                                                                       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Decision of the Board of      annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division
                                                                       The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
                                                                       in Case T-107/01, (1) claims to have been subjected to excessive
Pleas in law relied on:       —    infringement of Article 43(2)       financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
                                   of     Council     Regulation       its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
                                   No 40/94 (1);                       surrender of its mining licences. Because of the French
                                                                       administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
                              —    lack of evidence of genuine         impossible to effect.
                                   use of the opposed marks;
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(2)
                                   of Commission Regulation            Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
                                   No 2868/95 (2);                     administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
                                                                       under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(1)          the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
                                   of Commission Regulation            was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
                                   No 2686/95.                         action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
                                                                       under No T-107/01, referred to above.
                                                                       On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the        formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December               ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
    1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the          an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
    Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).                        Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
                                                                       informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
                                                                       ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
                                                                       which are challenged.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.11.2001
In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act       Pleas in law and main arguments
and annulment.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:                          on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
                                                                          the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
—     infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC                staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
      Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on        Technological Development programmes.
      ECSC undertakings of charges which, in the case of
      Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
      financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
      have to meet them in the absence of any commercial                  In support of her claims the applicant alleges:
      production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the
      ECSC Treaty;                                                        —     The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the
                                                                                principle of openness;
—     infringement of essential procedural requirements by
      failure to state reasons;                                           —     The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
                                                                                rules governing the composition of a selection board;
—     lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
      letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains
      was formally taken by the Commission and that its                   —     The infringement of the principles of sound adminis-
      signatory was authorised to sign it;                                      tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
                                                                                professional and administrative situation of the members
                                                                                of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
—     breach of the principle of sound administration.                          candidates.
(1) Sacilor Lorminesv Commission (not yet published in the Official
    Journal).
                                                                          Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                Market
Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-183/01)
                          (Case T-182/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/56)
                          (2001/C 317/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,                 European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and                  represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in                  London (UK).
Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
—     annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/                        Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
      R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not                    application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
      sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;               goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
                                                                                Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to
—     order the defendent to pay the costs.                                     registration for the goods in Class 5;


title: Case T-367/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission (Application for interim relief — Directive 91/414/EEC — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/43

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-367/07 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 51/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom); Dow AgroSciences BV (Hoek, Netherlands); Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Kongens Lyngby, Denmark); Dow AgroSciences GmbH, (Munich, Germany); Dow AgroSciences (Mougins, France); Dow AgroSciences Export (Mougins); Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary); Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy); Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland); Dow AgroSciences Distribution (Mougins); Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA (Madrid, Spain); Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana, United States) (represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/437/EC of 19 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of haloxyfop-R in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 22) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Proof of participation in collusion - Fine - Turnover - Determination of the amount - Mitigating circumstances)

text:
C 209/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         O'Keeffe, Solicitor of the Law Society of Ireland, with an
                      of 14 May 1998                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v.
in Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG v. Commission of                Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                the European Communities (1)                       initially, Richard Lyal and GeÂraud de Bergues, and
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof              subsequently Richard Lyal and Guy Charrier) Ð
of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Turnover Ð                  application for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/
Determination of the amount Ð Mitigating circumstances)            601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard)
                       (98/C 209/63)                               (OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court of First
                                                                   Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
               (Language of the case: German)                      composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
                                                                   Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                   GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG, established at
                                                                   judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
Hamburg, Germany, represented by Gerhard Wiedemann
and Wolfgang Kirchhoff, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            1. Dismisses the application.
Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine and
Richard Lyal, subsequently by Richard Lyal and Dirk                2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission                    relating to the application for interim relief.
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
proceeding unter Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833          (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the
Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of                                 of 14 May 1998
     Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                         in Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT v.
     13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85                 Commission of the European Communities (1)
     of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
                                                                   (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                   Liability for the infringement Ð Fine Ð Statement of
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                          reasons)
     claims.
                                                                                (98/C 209/65)
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( ) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
 1
                                                                   In Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT, established at
                                                                   Amsterdam, represented by Tom R. Ottervanger and
                                                                   Francis Herbert, advocates of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Carlos Zeyen, 56Ð58 Rue Charles Martel v. Commission
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         of the European Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and
                      of 14 May 1998                               Wouter Wils) Ð application for annulment of Commission
                                                                   Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
in Case T-308/94: Cascades SA v. Commission of the                 proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
                  European Communities (1)                         33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ 1994, L 243 of 19.9.1994,
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                    p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended
Liability for unlawful conduct Ð Fine Ð Statement of               Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the
             reasons Ð Mitigating circumstances)                   Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
                                                                   Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                       (98/C 209/64)                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which
                                                                   it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
In Case T-308/94: Cascades SA, having its registered office             by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of
at Bagnolet (France), represented by Jean-Louis Fourgoux,               13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, Jacques Buhart, of the Paris              of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) at
Bar, Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, and David                      ECU 2 700 000.


title: Action brought on 14 August 1997 by Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria against the Council of the European Union (Case T-238/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 318/33
Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 1997                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
by Franco Campoli, residing in Brussels, represented by
Sergio Diana , of the Cagliari Bar.
                                                                         1.    annul the Commission 's decision not to increase the
                                                                               amount in Danish krone transferred to the applicant's
                                                                               building loan savings account;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         2. order the Commission to pay :
— annul        the     Commission 's     decision   rejecting  the
       applicant's application to be classified in Grade A 7 at                — Ecu 3 per day as from 28 August 1996 by way of
       the time of taking up his duties,                                           compensation for the non-material damage it has
                                                                                caused to the applicant,
       order the Commission to pay the costs .                                     and
                                                                               — the costs of these proceedings .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission (').                               The application seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                         decision rejecting the applicant's request to increase by
                                                                         Danish Krone 15 000 per month the amount transferred
                                                                         to a building loan savings account opened under his name .
The applicant maintains that the judgment in Case T-17/
95 Alexopoulou v. Commission ( 2 ) and the Commission
decision published in March 1996 constitute new facts,                   The applicant states in this regard that he has made the
and also indications of the will of the administration to                application as a result of the judgment of the Court of
reapply a provision of the Staff Regulations ( Article 31 ( 2 ))         First Instance of the European Communities of 1 1 June
which was unlawfully disapplied. The applicant argues in                 1996 which held his application inadmissible in Case
that respect that, in correcting the unlawfulness of its                 T- 11 1 /94 (') after finding that the administrative
earlier conduct as impugned in the case cited above,                     procedure had been exhausted in the absence of an act
the Commission should give Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff                 adversely affecting him and of a request that a decision
Regulations an application not limited in time to the date               relating to him be taken .
of the judgment in that case .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
(') OJ C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                      same as those in the applications in Cases T- 11 0/94 ( 2 )
( 2 ) 119951 ECR-SC 11-683 .                                             and T-l 11 /94 ( 3 ), basically alleging an error of assessment
                                                                         of the conditions required by the applicable legislation in
                                                                         order to be entitled to an increase in the amount of the
                                                                         transfer referred to herein, as well as disregard for the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         (') ECR-SC 11-819 .
Action brought on 11 August 1997 by Giovanni                             ( 2 ) OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 27.
        Ouzounoff Popoff against the Commission of the                   n OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 28 .
                       European Communities
                           ( Case T-236/97 )
                             ( 97/C 318/63 )
                                                                         Action brought on 14 August 1997 by Comunidad
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                               Autonoma de Cantabria against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                                                                                Case T-238/97 )
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                    ( 97/C 318/64 )
Instance of the European Communities on 11 August
 1997 by Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, residing at Brussels,                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
 address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040                        An action against the Council of the European Union
 Brussels .                                                              was brought before the Court of First Instance of
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/34                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
the European Communities on 14 August 1997 by                        Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
Comunidad Autonoma de Cantabria, Spain, represented                           Commission of the European Communities
by Juan Ignacio Saez Bereciartu of the Cantabria Bar.                                           Case T-248/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/65 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the reference to Astander from the 11th recital
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
      in the preamble to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1013/          Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
      97 and remove the condition that aid provided for in           1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
      Articles 1 and 2 is subject to the restriction of ship         of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at 2 Calle
      conversions in the aforementioned shipyard.                    Conde de la Cimera, Madrid.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — declare wholly null and void or non-existent the
                                                                          decision of the appointing authority of the European
The applicant complains that Council Regulation ( EC ) No                 Commission of 30 March 1992 , whereby C's
 1013/97 ('), of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards                  resignation was accepted and deemed to be definitive,
under restructuring states in the 11th recital that ship
conversions will not be carried out in the shipyard at               — acknowledge the applicant's current status as a
Astander. Although that statement is not expressly                        Commission official and either: ( a ) order payment of
reflected in the body of the Regulation, it is none the less              salary due to him but unpaid since 1 April 1992 ; or,
the case that it sets a condition for the award of the                    in the alternative ( b ) find that the invalidity pension
exceptional aid which is provided for in Articles 1 and 2                 to be granted to C following completion of the
thereof. Thus, Article 1 (4 ) refers to the possibility that aid          appropriate procedure should take effect from 1 April
 for the restructuring of the publicly-owned yards in Spain               1992 ,
 may be considered compatible with the common market
 up to an amount and in the forms specified in the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities
 Regulation itself, such aid being nevertheless subject, by               to pay the costs .
way of the recital under challenge , to there being no ship
 conversions carried out in the shipyard at Astander as
 long as it remains in public ownership.                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those previously
                                                                     relied on in Case T-27/97 C v. Commission (').
 The applicant claims that the reference to Astander in the
 contested Regulation breaches the reservation expressly set
 forth in Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome in that a                (■) OJ C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997, p . 15 .
 genuine decision is inserted in the preamble to a
 regulation when it should have been embodied in a
 separate piece of legislation rather than included in vague
 terms in a provision of general application . Although it
 uses a regulation, the Council makes its effectiveness
 subject to the observance of a decision, which is also              Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
 mandatory but which affects the specific persons to whom                      Commission of the European Communities
 it is addressed .                                                                             ( Case T-249/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/66 )
 Moreover, the applicant alleges breach of the obligation to                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
 provide a statement of reasons for measures inasmuch as,
 in its view, it is impossible to understand why a general
 aid scheme is made subject to a restriction concerning a            An action against the Commission of the European
 specific and determined shipbuilding yard . None of this             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 has any basis at all in any accord or agreement which                Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
 might have given rise to a decision of such impact on the            1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
 shipyard concerned and the surrounding districts .                   of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Madrid
                                                                      at 2 Calle Conde de la Cimera .
 O OJ L 148 , 6 . 6 . 1997, p . 1 .                                   The applicant claims that the Court should uphold this
                                                                      application seeking the grant of an invalidity pension to
                                                                      him in the terms set out below and order the Commission
                                                                      to pay the costs.


title: Case C-19/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2016 by Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 October 2015 in Case T-134/11: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd v European Commission

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/26

         Appeal brought on 13 January 2016 by Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 October 2015 in Case T-134/11: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-19/16 P)
   (2016/C 106/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (represented by: N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor, E. Grieves, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision of 28 October 2015

               —

               substitute its own decision and annul the contested measures

               —

               order the Commission, the Council and the United Kingdom to pay the costs in the General Court and in the Court of Justice proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal advances 4 pleas in law.
   Ground 1 disputes the Court's decision that the challenges to the substantive decision to list the first three applicants were not properly raised before the Court. The Court failed to properly characterise pleading IV as a challenge to the Commission's assessment of the facts. The Court failed to take into account the applicants' observations, which ought to have been considered because a) the Court had requested them, b) they had been served prior to the defendant lodging its defence and c) the applicants had always indicated that they wished to challenge the assessment of facts. The Court's approach was inconsistent with Ayadi v Commission T-527/09 (14.4.15)
   Ground 2 challenges the Court's decision on the basis that it failed to apply the binding authority of Kadi II. The Court failed to determine for itself whether or not the allegations in the statement of reasons were well founded.
   Ground 3 challenges the Court's finding that the Commission conducted a careful and independent analysis of the justification for listing. The Court's finding that the Commission did conduct such an analysis was unsustainable in light of the facts of the case and previous judicial findings in other similar cases.
   Ground 4 challenges the Court's decision that Sanabel had no legal standing on the basis that the court erred in its understanding of the law. Sanabel's legal standing is not contingent upon parallel characterisations under domestic law, but upon whether it is deemed capable of being so designated.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-76/02: Mara Messina v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to documents — Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

text:
C 275/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
applicant in December 1996 and September 1997, the Court                    1.     Dismisses the application.
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September
2003, in which it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2001
      refusing the applications for co-financing made by the applicant
      in December 1996 and September 1997.
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant in
      addition to its own costs.
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-76/02: Mara Messina v Commission of the
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      European Communities (1)
                       of 17 September 2003                                 (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to documents —
                                                                            Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member
                                                                                State without the prior agreement of that State)
in Case T-71/02: Classen Holding KG v Office for Harmon-
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)                                                               (2003/C 275/73)
(Community trade mark — Admissibility of appeal before
the Board of Appeal — Formal requirements — Filing of a                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Time-
limit for applying for restitutio in integrum — Articles 59
                 and 78 of Regulation No 40/94)
                                                                            In Case T-76/02, Mara Messina, residing at Naples (Italy),
                          (2003/C 275/72)                                   represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, V. Di Bucci and
                                                                            P. Aalto): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents
                                                                            relating to the State aid scheme which was the subject of the
                                                                            Commission’s Decision of 2 August 2000 (State Aid N 715/
                                                                            99 — Italy (SG 2000 D/10574), the Court of First Instance
In Case T-71/02, Classen Holding KG, established in Essen                   (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tii-
(Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer,                li, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for                     ras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2003, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the intervener before                 which it:
the Court of First Instance being International Paper Co.,
established in New York, New York (United States of America),
represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer: Action brought                   1.     Dismisses the action.
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 14 December 2001 (Case R 810/1999-2)                        2.     Orders the applicant to bear half her own costs. Orders the
declaring inadmissible, following rejection of the application                     Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
for restitutio in integrum, the appeal brought against the                         applicant’s costs.
decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings
between Classen Holding KG and International Paper Co., the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,            (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 September 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-62/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-62/17)
   (2017/C 144/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daniela Chlubna

      Defendant: APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
               Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
               What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Action brought on 16 March 1995 by Compagnie Générale Maritime and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-86/95)

text:
No C 137/32           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 16 March 1995 by D.I.R. International              EFDO funding in relation to the distribution of the films
Film Sri, Nostradamus Enterprises Ltd, Union P.N. Sri,               'Nostradamus ' and 'Maniaci sentimentali '.
United International Pictures BV, United International
Pictures AB , United International Pictures APS, United              The applicants submit that the act of 5 December 1994
International Pictures A/S, United International Pictures            and/or the act by which the Commission purported to
EPE, United International Pictures OY and United                     instruct EFDO , on or prior to 5 December 1994, to reject
International Pictures y Cia SRC against the Commission of           UIP's applications must be annulled on any or all of the
                 the European Communities                            following grounds:
                        ( Case T-85/95 )
                                                                     ( a ) infringement of the selection criteria set out in the
                          ( 95/C 137/71 )                                    EFDO ' Guidelines';
                                                                     ( b ) infringement of the philosophy and the stated aims of
               (Language of the case: English)                               the Media programme;
An action against the Commission of the European                     (c ) lack of proper reasoning.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995
by D.I.R. International Films Sri and Others, represented by
Michel Waelbroeck, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10, rue
                                                                     Action brought on 16 March 1995 by Compagnie Generale
Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.
                                                                     Maritime and others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should :                                                   ( Case T-86/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/72
— annul :
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
    — the act of 5 December 1994 , notified to UIP
        ( London ) on 10 January 1995 , by which the                 An action against the Commission of the European
        European Film Distribution Office (' EFDO ') turned          Communities was brought before the Court of First
        down the applications made by various UIP                    Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995
        subsidiaries for EFDO funding in relation to the             by Compagnie Generale Maritime and others, represented
        distribution of the films 'Nostradamus ' and ' Maniaci       by Mr Nicholas Forwood, QC, and Mr Philip Ruttley,
        sentimentali',                                               solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Cabinet Arendt & Medernach, Boite Postale 39, L-2010
    — and/or the act by which the European Commission                Luxembourg.
        instructed or purported to instruct EFDO to take this
        act ,                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
— order the Commission to state whether it issued separate           — declare their application admissible and well-founded,
    instructions, either orally or in writing, with respect to
                                                                     — annul the Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
    the above act of 5 December 1994 and to produce or to
    procure that EFDO produce all correspondence and                      relating to the Far Eastern Freight Conference
    other documents ( including but not limited to internal                ( IV/33.218 ), and
    and external      documents,     minutes of EFDO        or
    Commission meetings ) evidencing such instructions ,             — order the Commission to pay the applicants ' costs in this
                                                                          action .
— if such instructions were issued in an oral form and if
    there exist no written record evidencing them, order the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    defendant to provide or to produce that EFDO provide a           In the present application, the Commission's Decision of
    written summary of such instructions,                            21 December 1994 in case IV/33.218 is challenged by 13 of
                                                                     its 14 addressees, all of them member lines of the Far Eastern
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            Freight Conference ( FEFC ). By this Decision, the defendant
                                                                     institution held that the applicants have infringed Article 85
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by agreeing common prices for inland
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  transport services supplied within the EC as part of a
                                                                     multimodal transport operation for the carriage of
The applicants challenge the act of 5 December 1994,                 containerized cargo .
whereby the European Film Distribution Office ('EFDO'), a
body established within the framework of the Media                   It follows from this Decision that, according to the
Programme, rejected the applications made by various                 Commission's position in relation to the application of the
subsidiaries of United International Pictures ('UIP') for            competition rules to multimodal international maritime
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 137/33
transport services, only the maritime part of the service —            ( f) Finally, several procedural infringements have affected
i.e. the transport by seagoing vessel from or to a Community                   the very basis of the contested Decision, namely failure
port — is subject to the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )                      to use the consultation/conciliation procedures
No 4056/86 , whereas the provision of carrier haulage is                       provided under Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 or the
subject to the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )                                UN Code, the failure to consult the appropriate
No 1017/68 .                                                                   Advisory Committee and failure to give adequate
                                                                               reasoning pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
The applicants submit that the contested Decision should be
annulled on the basis of the following reasons :
( a ) A proper definition of the relevant market would lead
       to the conclusion that multimodal transport offered by
       them form part of the market for international                  Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Societa Cementerie
       maritime transport services as a whole. Consequently,           del Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , and not Regulation                                           Communities
       ( EEC ) No 1017/86 , is the applicable Regulation.                                         (Case T-87/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/73
( b ) In the alternative, even if the Court should accept the
       Commission 's      contention   that   the   line 's inland
       activities are to be regarded as distinct services from the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
       viewpoint of Article 85 ( 1 ) on a market for inland
       transport services , the Commission still does not              An action against the Commission of the European
       adequately define or consider the characteristics of this       Communities was brought before the Court of First
       market, and so fails properly to assess whether the             Instance of the European Communities on 17 March 1995
       agreement has an appreciable effect on competition or           by Societa Cementerie del Tirreno SpA ('Cementir'), with its
       inter-State trade within the market.                            registered office in Rome, represented by Gian Michele
                                                                       Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, both of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 (c ) In examining the applicability of Article 85 ( 3 ), the          Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l er.
       Commission ignores the benefits which are brought
       about through network rationalization — and the
       consequent minimization of overall costs to the carrier         The applicant claims that the Court should :
       and thus to the shipper — or the role that a uniform
       multimodal tariff plays in allowing individual lines each       — annul in whole or in part Commission Decision
       to optimize their individual networks, while                           94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a
       maintaining overall uniformity of rates offered to                     proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
       shippers from any given inland point. At the same time,                IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) ( l ),
       the contested Decision pays no regard to the
       improvements in productivity or technical or economic
       progress that come about through more effective                 — annul or reduce the fine imposed on Cementir under
       container control , more effective movements of                        Article 9 of that Decision,
       containers and all other aspects of the multimodal
       service .                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ( d ) The contested Decision keeps silent about the fact that          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       few lines conferences, if any, do not have a miltimodal
       tariff. To deny liner conference's block exemption in           The applicant challenges the lawfulness of the Decision in
       Article 3 of Regulation (EEC ) No 4056/86 would                  three respects:
       render the block exemption of no or very little practical
       value to the very class of beneficiaries it was intended to         I.   Fundamental     errors    of   fact  and   law   in  the
       assist. This cannot have been the intention of the
                                                                                ascertainment and legal assessment of the alleged
       Commission in proposing its draft Regulation in 1981                     infringements.
       nor of the Council in adopting Regulation ( EEC )
       No 4056/86 .
                                                                         II . Infringement of essential procedural requirements and
                                                                                of the rights of the defence .
 (e ) The applicant's rights to defence have been violated, in
       that inter alia, the Commission relied extensively on            III. The fine imposed by the Commission was also
       evidence and arguments not relied upon in the                            unlawful and must therefore be annulled or reduced,
       statement of objections and that new allegations were                    either because the alleged infringements were totally or
       made in the Decision which did not appear in the                         partially non-existent or, in the alternative and in any
       statement of objections .                                                event, because the Commission failed correctly to


22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-524/93 (1)
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and                                      (2000/C 20/55)
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-524/93: Patrick Wall v Council of the
                                                                         European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties.
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Total Nederland                     (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
B.V. and Fina Nederland B.V. against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                         (Case T-252/99)
                          (2000/C 20/54)                                 Removal from the register of Case T-195/94 and
                                                                                T-202/94 (1)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                 (2000/C 20/56)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                  (Language of the case: German)
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Total Neder-
land B.V. and Fina Nederland B.V., respectively established in           By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Rotterdam and The Hague (Netherlands), represented by                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and R. Wesseling, of the Hague Bar,               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             the register of Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm
M. Maître, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                Quiller and Johann Heusmann v Council of the European
                                                                         Union and Commission of the European Communities.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 9.7.1994 and C 218 of 6.8.1994.
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to
     give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to
     its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633
     service stations in the region bordering Germany, and
     order the adoption of all such further measures as may be
     necessary;                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-10/96 (1)
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                                (2000/C 20/57)
     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and               Case T-10/96: Benjamin Laurence Lay v Council of the
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.                   European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 January 1997 in Case T-7/94: Hilde Adriaenssens and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment of measures - Pay slips applying the scales in respect of certain parental contributions fixed by a joint interinstitutional committee - Admissibility - Time-limits - Time-barred)

text:
8 . 3 . 97            1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 74/ 19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 January 1997                                                   of 29 January 1997
                                                                            in Case T-7/94 : Hilde Adriaenssens and Others v.
in Case T-l 15/94: Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of the                        Commission of the European Communities ( l )
                        European Union O
                                                                      (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures — Pay
(Withdrawal of tariff concessions — Agreement on the                  slips applying the scales in respect of certain parental
European Economic Area — Obligation under public                      contributions fixed by a joint interinstitutional committee
international law not to deprive a treaty of its object                      — Admissibility — Time-limits — Time-barred)
and purpose before its entry into force — Principle of
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/41 )
protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal
         certainty — Publication in the Official Journal)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            ( 97/C 74/40 )
                                                                      In Case T-7/94 : Hilde Adriaenssens, Irma Both, Maria
                                                                      Luisa Cipriano, Raffaella Fraconfini, Christine Mitchell,
                                                                      Paloma Moreno-Doz, Jennifer Perry, Alexandros
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Athanassiadis, Francisco de Vicente and Philippe Tempe,
                                                                      officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
In Case T-l 15/94: Opel Austria GmbH, formerly General                an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51
Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is in                    rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the European
Vienna, Austria, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of                Communities ( Agents : initially, Joseph Griesmar and,
the Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,                subsequently, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Julian Currall )
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                     — application, first, for annulment of the implicit
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                   decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicants '
8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, supported by Republic of Austria              complaints seeking to have the scales applied in
( Agents: initially Irene Janisch, subsequently Beatrix               Luxembourg on the levying of the parental contributions
Matousek-Horak and Christian Kremer) v. Council of the                which they are required to pay as users of the nursery,
European Union, ( Agents : Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and Hans-              kindergarten and study centre services brought into line
Jiirgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ), supported by                    with those in force in Brussels, and, second, in so far as
Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents: John                those decisions are based on the decision of the Social
Forman, Eric White and Theofanis Christoforou ) —                     Activities Committee fixing those scales, for a declaration
application for anulment of Council Regulation ( EC )                 that that decision is illegal — the Court of First Instance
No 3697/93 of 20 December 1993 withdrawing tariff                     ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, and
concessions in accordance with Article 23 (2 ) and                    V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
Article 27 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the Free Trade Agreement between            Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January 1997, in
the Community and Austria ( General Motors Austria ) ( OJ             which it:
No L 343 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 1 ), — the Court of First
 Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                 1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January 1997, in               2 . orders the defendants to pay all the costs.
 which it :
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
 1 . annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 3697/93 of
       20 December 1993 withdrawing tariff concessions in
       accordance with Article 23 (2) and Article 27 (3) (a)
       of the Free Trade Agreement between the Community
       and Austria (General Motors Austria);                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 January 1997
                                                                       in Case T-297/94 : Joelle Vanderhaeghen v. Commission of
 2 . orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay the                              the European Communities ( l )
       applicant's costs;                                              (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures —
                                                                       Admissibility — Pay slips applying the scales in respect of
                                                                       certain parental contributions fixed by a joint inter
 3 . orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to              institutional committee — Principle of equality of
       bear their own costs .                                                                        treatment)
                                                                                97/C 74/42 )
 (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-297/94: Joelle Vanderhaeghen, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded appeal)

text:
C 122/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.4.2000
legislation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-            who, by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
gations under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after              14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) and Article 13 of the                 employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
said regulation — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                  of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), are not subject to
bers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Rag-           French social security legislation, the French Republic has
nemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 and 52 of the
General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                   EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)
judgment on 15 February 2000, in which it:                                 and Article 13 of the said regulation — the Court, composed
                                                                           of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
1. Declares that, by applying the social debt repayment contribution       (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presi-
    to the employment income and substitute income of employed             dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
    and self-employed persons resident in France but working in            P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    another Member State who, by virtue of Council Regulation              Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given
    (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                 a judgment on 15 February 2000, in which it:
    social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
    persons and to members of their families moving within the             1. Declares that, by applying the general social contribution to the
    Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                     employment income and substitute income of employed and
    (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are not subject to French                self-employed persons resident in France but who, by virtue of
    social security legislation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil       Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    its obligations under Article 13 of that regulation and under               the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
    Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
    Articles 39 EC and 43 EC);                                                  within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are not
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 subject to French social security legislation, the French Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that
                                                                                regulation and under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now,
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC);
                                                                           2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 15 February 2000
in Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                      ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
   (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                           (2000/C 122/06)
                                                                           in Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
                                                                                unfounded appeal)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/07)
In Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P. Hillenkamp and H. Michard) v French Republic
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance) — application
for a declaration that, by applying the general social contri-
bution to the employment income and substitute income of                   In Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA, established at Le Passage
employed and self-employed persons resident in France but                  (France), Jean-Marie Bissières, residing at La Croix Blanche
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/5
(France), Loma SA, formerly SA Lomagenais, established at                 Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
Penne D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at                  of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
Penne D’Agenais (France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of             Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
the Agen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                Registrar, has made an order on 20 January 2000 in which it:
the Chambers of Aloise May, 31 Grand-Rue — appeal against
the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)                 1. Dismisses the appeal;
of 9 March 1999, Clauni and Others v Commission (Case
T-205/98, not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that             2. Orders Clauni SA, Loma SA and Messrs Bissières and Lompech
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                     to pay the costs.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot),
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de
Almeida, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, and                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 December 1999,
the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Clauni SA, Loma SA, Mr Bissières and Mr Lompech are ordered
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
    to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                                                                          in Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvi-
                                                                          mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                    (Appeal — European Social Fund — Decisions to reduce
                                                                          two amounts of Community assistance — Appeal in part
                                                                           manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/09)
                       of 20 January 2000
in Case C-171/99 P: Clauni and Others v Commission of                                      (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento
(Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part mani-                 de Recursos Humanos, ACE, established at Almada (Portugal),
                        festly unfounded)                                 represented by M. Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar — appeal
                                                                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities of 16 July 1998 in Case T-72/97
                         (2000/C 122/08)                                  Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
                                                                          Humanos, ACE v Commission [1998] ECR II-2847, seeking to
                                                                          have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                    (Language of the case: French)                        being Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          T. Figueira and K. Simonsson), the Court (Third Chamber),
                                                                          composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
In Case C-171/99 P: Clauni SA, established at Le Passage                  Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;
(France), Jean-Marie Bissières, residing at La Croix Blanche              G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
(France), Loma SA, formerly Lomagenais SA, established at                 order on 27 January 2000 in which it:
Penne d’Agenais (France) and André Lompech, residing at
Penne d’Agenais, represented by D. Veyssière, of the Agen Bar,            1. Dismisses the appeal;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of A. May, 31 Grand-rue, v Commission of the European                     2. Orders Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — appeal against the judgment                  Humanos, ACE to pay the costs.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 1999 in Case T-206/98 Clauni
and Others v Commission, not yet published in the European                (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
Court Reports, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot), the Court (Third


title: Case C-474/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar (France) lodged on 29 August 2016 — The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar (France) lodged on 29 August 2016 — The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless
      (Case C-474/16)
      (2016/C 441/11)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Colmar

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

         Question referred

      Is the legal effect of an A1 certificate issued to a temporary-work agency, in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) by the institution designated by the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the employed worker, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, if it is found that the conditions under which the employee pursues the activity clearly do not fall within the substantive scope of the specific rules set out in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

         (1)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.


title: Case T-129/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Bongrain v OHIM — Apetito (APETITO)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/47

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Bongrain v OHIM — Apetito (APETITO)
   (Case T-129/09)
   2009/C 141/98
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bongrain SA (Viroflay, France) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apetito AG (Rheine, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2009 in case R 720/2008-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘APETITO’, for goods in class 29 — application No 3 470 598

      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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘apetito’ for goods in classes 5, 11, 21 29, 30, 37, 39, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is similarity of goods and hence likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

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