25.11.2000            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 335/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-265/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-268/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/72)                                                      (2000/C 335/75)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-265/98 (reference for a preliminary           the register of Case C-268/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Compañ Calbuig.               Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Marı́a Casas
                                                                     Minguélez.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-266/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/73)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-269/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 335/76)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-266/98 (reference for a preliminary           By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v Gianfranco Caminati.                the register of Case C-269/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Planeta Crédito SA v Antonio Villar Castelao.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-267/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/74)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-270/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                    (2000/C 335/77)
the register of Case C-267/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rafael Bogas         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Cardeñosa.                                                          the register of Case C-270/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Salvat Artel SA v Pilar López Aznar.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 1998 in Case C-412/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus): Proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab (Transport - Public service obligations - Application for termination of part of a service obligation)

text:
C 327/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R.
17 September 1998, in which it:                                      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
                                                                     1998, in which it has ruled:
1. Declares that,
                                                                     1. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
     Ð by failing to publish a contract notice in the
                                                                          concerning the placing of plant protection products
         Official Journal of the European Communities
                                                                          on the market requires prior authorisation, granted
         both for the overall project and for each of the lots
                                                                          pursuant to either Article 4 or Article 8, to be
         relating to the construction of the premises of the
                                                                          obtained from the competent authority of each
         Vlaamse Raad, and
                                                                          Member State in which a pesticide covered by that
                                                                          directive is placed on the market.
     Ð by failing to apply the award procedures laid
         down in Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
         1971 concerning the coordination of procedures              2. National legislation which prohibits a biocidal product
         for the award of public works contracts, as                      not previously authorised by the competent authority
         amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC                          from being placed on the market constitutes a measure
         of 18 July 1989, and Council Directive 93/37/EEC                 having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction
         of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination                      within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty
         of procedures for the award of public works                      which is justified under Article 36 of that Treaty, even
         contracts and, more specifically, by having                      if that product has already been authorised in another
         awarded lot No 4 by negotiated procedure without                 Member State, provided that technical or chemical
         justification,                                                   analyses or laboratory tests are not unnecessarily
                                                                          required when the same analyses and tests have
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                      already been carried out in that other Member State
     obligations under those directives and, more                         and their results are available to the competent
     specifically, under Articles 7 and 11(2) and (9) of                  authorities of the importing Member State or can, at
     Directive 93/37;                                                     their request, be made available to them.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        (Sixth Chamber)
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 17 September 1998
                     of 17 September 1998                            in Case C-412/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-400/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                 from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus): Proceedings brought
from the Tribunal Correctionnel, Charleroi): Criminal                 by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab (1)
            proceedings against Jean Harpegnies (1)
                                                                     (Transport Ð Public service obligations Ð Application for
(Plant protection products Ð National legislation                              termination of part of a service obligation)
requiring approval by the competent authorities Ð
                                                                                (98/C 327/07)
                  Article 30 of the EC Treaty)
                          (98/C 327/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-400/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-412/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Correctionnel                     of the EC Treaty from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus
(Criminal Court), Charleroi (Belgium), for a preliminary             (Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought
court against Jean Harpegnies Ð on the interpretation of             by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab Ð
Article 30 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),             on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                 the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/5
concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a              pending before that court between Ermanno Agostini and
public service in transport by rail, road and inland                 Emanuele Agostini and Ligue Francophone de Judo et
waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 276),             Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL
as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of                 on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 and 59 of the EC
20 June 1991 (OJ L 169, 29.6.1991, p. 1), in particular              Treaty, of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
Article 1(3) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof Ð the             15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                    within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,               1968 (II), p. 475), and of Council Directive 73/148/EEC
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges;                 of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on
P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 movement and residence within the Community for
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                nationals of Member States with regard to establishment
17 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                            and the provision of services (OJ L 172, 19.6.1973, p. 14)
                                                                     Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June                R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini
1969 on action by Member States concerning the                       (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.
obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in           Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended              G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges,
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June                    G. Cosmas, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, made
1991, in particular Article 1(3) and Article 4 thereof, must         an order on 8 July 1998, the operative part is as follows:
be construed as not obliging the Member States to grant
an application by a transport undertaking for partial
termination of its public service obligation, even if that
undertaking shows that maintaining the obligation                    The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the
involves economic disadvantages for it. However, the only            Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance, Namur, by order of that
ground for refusing such an application is the need to               court of 5 January 1998, is inadmissible.
ensure adequate transport services. That concept is to be
assessed, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation
                                                                     (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
(EEC) No 1191/69, by reference to the public interest, the
possibility of having recourse to other forms of transport
and the ability of such forms to meet the transport needs
under consideration, and the transport rates and
conditions which can be quoted to users. Where there
are several ways of ensuring, while satisfying similar
conditions, the provision of adequate transport services,
the competent authorities are to select the way least costly         Action brought on 23 July 1998 by the Italian Republic
to the community.                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-295/98)
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
                                                                                (98/C 327/09)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 the European Communities on 23 July 1998 by the Italian
                        of 8 July 1998                               Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza,
                                                                     acting as Agent, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato
in Case C-9/98: Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini               dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
v Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines AssocieÂes                the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
           ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL (1)
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (98/C 327/08)
                (Language of the case: French)                       Ð Annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
                                                                         1998 (1) in so far as, in clearing the accounts presented
                                                                         by the Italian Republic in respect of expenditure for
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           1994, it declares that, for the reasons set out therein,
          published in the European Court Reports)                       the amounts referred to are not chargeable to the
                                                                         EAGGF;
In Case C-9/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance,
Namur, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-23/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/35

         Action brought on 20 February 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-23/12)
   2012/C 138/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/204/10 refusing to admit the applicants to the next stage of the competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to produce all the reports of the meetings of the EPSO Heads of Unit and all the minutes of the Selection Board’s meetings in relation to competition EPSO/AD/204/10;

               —

               annul the decisions of 13 April 2011 of the Selection Board in competition EPSO/AD/204/10;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-488/15: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMART) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/16

         Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMART)
   (Case T-488/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 1734/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2003 in Case T-78/01 INNOVA – Centro euromediterraneo per lo sviluppo sostenibile v Commission of the European Communities ("Culture 2000" Programme — "Una festa per Aristofane" project — Suspension of payment of part of a Community grant awarded — No need to adjudicate)

text:
20.3.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   SA, established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                             A. Vianello, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             against the Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Mar-
                       of 17 November 2003
                                                                             quardt and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for taxation
                                                                             of the costs to be reimbursed by the applicants to the defendant
In Case T-340/99 DEP: Arne Mathisen AS against Council                       following the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second
                    of the European Union (1)                                Chamber, Extended Composition) of 5 April 2001 given in
                                                                             Case T-82/00 Bic and Others v Council [2001] ECR II-1241
(Taxation of costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the                    — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
parties for the purposes of the proceedings — Lawyers’ fees                  of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                       — Photocopy expenses)                                 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 December 2003, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2004/C 71/49)
                                                                             The total amount of costs recoverable by the Council in Case T-82/
                    (Language of the case: English)                          00 is fixed at EUR 5 500.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
In Case T-340/99 DEP: Arne Mathisen AS, established in
Vaeroy (Norway), represented by S. Knudtzon, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union, (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch),
supported by Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany): Application for taxation
of costs brought by the Council following the judgment of the
Court of First Instance in Case T-340/99 Arne Mathisen v
Council [2002] ECR II-2905, the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and
N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
17 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                                        of 4 December 2003
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Arne Mathisen AS to            in Case T-78/01 INNOVA – Centro euromediterraneo per
the Council is fixed at EUR 30 620,01.                                       lo sviluppo sostenibile v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                             (‘Culture 2000’ Programme — ‘Una festa per Aristofane’
                                                                             project — Suspension of payment of part of a Community
                                                                                grant awarded — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/51)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 3 December 2003
in Case T-82/00 DEP: Bic SA and Others v Council of the
                         European Union (1)                                  In Case T-78/01: INNOVA — Centro euromediterraneo per lo
                                                                             sviluppo sostenibile, established in Calatafimi (Italy), represent-
                 (Procedure — Taxation of costs)                             ed by D. Waelbroeck and J. Waldron, lawyers, v Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H.
                                                                             Speyart) — application seeking, in the first place, an order that
                           (2004/C 71/50)                                    the Commission should pay the second and final tranches of
                                                                             the grant awarded to the applicant for the ‘Una festa per
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Aristofane’ project under the ‘Culture 2000’ programme
                                                                             established by Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (OJ 2000
                                                                             L 63, p. 1), and, in the alternative, annulment of the
In Case T-82/00 DEP: Bic SA, established in Clichy (France),                 Commission’s decision allegedly sent by letter of 25 January
Flamagas SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Swedish Match                 2001, informing the applicant of the suspension of payment
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/28                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
of these sums — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                1.   dismisses the action as being manifestly devoid of any legal
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and                           basis;
E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 4 December 2003, the operative part of which is as                 2.   orders the parties to bear their own costs.
follows:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 November 2003
                                                                            in Case T-96/02: Hugh Mc Bryan v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  (Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights
                                                                            — Calculation of the annual contributions to be taken into
                                                                            account — Salary used as reference — Action manifestly
                      of 26 November 2003                                                       devoid of any legal basis)
in Case T-95/02: Michael Hohenbichler v Commission of                                                 (2004/C 71/53)
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights
— Calculation of the annual contributions to be taken into
account — Annual salary used as reference — Action
              manifestly devoid of any legal basis)                         In Case T-96/02: Hugh Mc Bryan, an official of the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
                                                                            represented by J.–N. Louis, lawyer, with an address for
                          (2004/C 71/52)                                    service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) —
                                                                            application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                            14 May 2001 calculating the annual contributions to be
                    (Language of the case: French)                          credited for the purpose of transfer to the Community scheme,
                                                                            under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, of
                                                                            national pension rights acquired by the applicant before his
                                                                            entering the service — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and
In case T-95/02: Michael Hohenbichler, an official of the                   F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                   26 November 2003, in which it:
sels (Belgium), represented by J.–N. Louis, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-                    1.   dismisses the action as being manifestly devoid of any legal
Lacombe) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                         basis;
decision of 21 May 2001 calculating the annual contributions
to be credited for the purpose of transfer to the Community                 2.   orders the parties to bear their own costs.
scheme, under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations, of national pension rights acquired by the appli-
cant before his entering the service — the Court of First                   (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 26 November 2003, in which it:


title: References for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Administratif du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (First Chamber) by judgments of that court of 7 May 1997 in the cases of Manuel de Castro Freitas and Raymond Escallier against the Minister for Small Businesses and Tourism (Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 212/ 19
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of                          References for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                       Administratif du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg (First
                              of Germany                                    Chamber) by judgments of that court of 7 May 1997 in
                          ( Case C-192/97)
                                                                            the cases of Manuel de Castro Freitas and Raymond
                                                                            Escallier against the Minister for Small Businesses and
                            ( 97/C 212/34 )                                                                     Tourism
                                                                                ( Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/35 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                                                            Administratif du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg ( First
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                            Chamber ) ( Administrative Tribunal of the Grand Duchy
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                        of Luxembourg ( First Chamber)) of 7 May 1997, received
also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                            at the Court Registry on 21 May 1997, for preliminary
Kirchberg.                                                                  rulings in the cases of Manuel de Castro Freitas and
                                                                            Raymond Escallier against the Minister for Small
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Businesses and Tourism on the following questions:
                                                                             1 . Does the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council
                                                                                Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down
 1 . declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
                                                                                detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in
      its obligations under Council Directive 82/501/EEC of
                                                                                respect of activities of self-employed persons in
      24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain
                                                                                manufacturing and processing industries falling within
      industrial activities H, and in particular of Article 1
                                                                                ISIC Major Groups 23 to 40 ( Industry and small craft
      thereof in conjunction with Annexes I and III thereto,
      in that :
                                                                                industries ) ( l ), which refers to the taking up ' or pursuit
                                                                                of any activity referred to in Article 1 ( 2 )' ( Tune des
                                                                                activites mentionnees a Particle premier paragraphe 2 ,
      — it failed fully to adopt the concept of 'major                             ou l'exercice de celles-ci ') and to 'the fact that the
           accidents' in national law, since persons who are                       activity in question has been pursued' (' l'exercice
           under a duty to prevent occurrences or to deal                          effectif... de l'activite consideree'), cover the
           with their consequences are excluded from the                           situation where a Community national has pursued
           category of persons affected by a serious danger,                       simultaneously in the Member State whence he comes
                                                                                more than one activity falling within the scope of this
                                                                                Directive and applies to establish his business in
      — it failed fully to adopt the concept of ' industrial
                                                                                another Member State, continuing the simultaneous
           activity' in national law, since the handling of
                                                                                pursuit of those activities ( Case C-193/97 ) or trades
           chemicals is covered only if a chemical
           transformation takes place,                                             ( Case C-194/97), having regard, in particular, to
                                                                                the principle of the freedom of establishment laid
                                                                                down in Article 52 of the Treaty, now amended, of
      — in relation to nitrous oxide, it set a threshold level                      17 April 1957 establishing the European Economic
           incompatible with Annex III to the Directive,                           Community ?
                                                                             2 . If so, is the period of experience required by Article 3
      — it failed to include the substance referred to in
                                                                                ( a ) altered in respect of all or some of the activities
           No 175 of Annex III to the Directive within the
                                                                                concerned owing to the fact that they were pursued
           scope of the national provisions;                                        simultaneously ?
                                                                             3 . Does the fact that the activities in question are closely
 2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                               connected, or even unconnected, have any relevance ?
       costs .
                                                                              (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1963—64, p. 148 .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
  those in Case C-l 86/97 ( 2). The period for implementation                 Action brought on 20 May 1997 by the Commission of
  expired on 8 January 1984 .                                                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-195/97)
  (') OJ No L 230 , 5 . 8 . 1982 , p. 1 , as last amended by Directive                                       ( 97/C 212/36 )
      91 /692/EEC ( OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 48 ).
  (2) See page 16 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                              20 May 1997 by the Commission of the European


title: Case T-97/06: Order of the Court of First Instance/Second Chamber of 1 December 2006 — Neoperl v OHIM (Representation of a sanitary pipe)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/45

         Order of the Court of First Instance/Second Chamber of 1 December 2006 — Neoperl v OHIM (Representation of a sanitary pipe)
   (Case T-97/06) (1)

   (2007/C 42/78)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance/Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-35/14 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Enercon GmbH v Gamesa Eólica SL, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Appeal brought by an ‘other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal’ which did not lodge a response before the General Court — Not an intervener before the General Court — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/12

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Enercon GmbH v Gamesa Eólica SL, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-35/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Appeal brought by an ‘other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal’ which did not lodge a response before the General Court - Not an intervener before the General Court - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 213/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: J. Eberhardt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Gamesa Eólica SL (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Enercon GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Gamesa Eólica SL.

               3)

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-428/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — STEF v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — STEF v Commission
   (Case T-428/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Samband tónskálda og eigenda flutningsréttar (STEF) (Reykjavík, Iceland) (represented by: H. Óttarsdóttir, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Samband tónskálda og eigenda flutningsréttar (STEF);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-249/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas against European Parliament

text:
C 3/36                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit
The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,                     him to Competition PE/90/A
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
                                                                           engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
                                                                           for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
                                                                           assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
                                                                           A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
specifications in the contested decision.
                                                                           selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
                                                                           to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
                                                                           ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified          not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as             degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs                  lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,               candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
the contested act violates Council Regulation (EEC)                        inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System                   honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-               equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı́a Técnica
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the             (technical engineering), is not accepted.
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
components in which these functions must be inherent.
                                                                           relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
    concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
    Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the             (2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
    tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs          (3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.
    Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).
                                                                           Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader                            AG against Commission of the European Communities
               Rivas against European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-250/01)
                            (Case T-249/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/63)
                             (2002/C 3/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-              Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
da (Madrid), represented by Diego López Garrido, lawyer.                  represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.


title: Case T-95/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2009 — United Phosphorus v Commission (Application for interim relief — Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414 — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/51

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2009 — United Phosphorus v Commission
   (Case T-95/09 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balance of interests)
   2009/C 180/95
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Phosphorus Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and N. Rasmussen, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35), until delivery of the judgment in the main action, and, second, for interim relief

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance is suspended up to 7 May 2010 — but at the latest up to the date on which the decision in the main action is delivered.

               2.

               That suspension is subject to the condition that the parties lodge with the Registry of the Court, by no later than 15 March 2010, observations on the course of the accelerated procedure instituted, in regard to napropamide, pursuant to Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414 as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included in its Annex I.

               3.

               The Commission is ordered to take, should the applicant so request, the measures necessary to ensure that the present order is fully effective in regard to those Member States which, prior to 7 May 2009, may already have cancelled, withdrawn or refused, pursuant to Article 2 of Decision 2008/902, authorisations for plant protection products containing napropamide.

               4.

               Costs are reserved.


C 113/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11.4.98
      Removal from the register of Case T-193/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case T-245/97 (1)
                        (98/C 113/55)                                                      (98/C 113/57)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: English)
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First             By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of           Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Case T-193/97: Heinrich Mehlhop v. Council of the                  removal from the register of Case T-245/97: Kaufhof
European Union and Commission of the European                      Warenhaus AG v. Commission of the European
Communities.                                                       Communities.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case T-239/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case T-265/97 (1)
                        (98/C 113/56)                                                      (98/C 113/58)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             By order of 5 March 1998 the President of the Third
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-239/97: Christos Venetidis v. European Parliament.          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-265/97: Region of Tuscany v. Commission of the
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.                                           European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
16.10.98        EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                             C 319/15
                                                        III
                                                     (Notices)
               COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN
                                         COMMUNITIES
                                    NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                  (98/C 319/07)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in the Official Journal of the
         European Communities CØ319ØA of 16 October 1998 the following open competition:
         English edition
         CJ/LA/29 (lawyer-linguists of English mother tongue).
         To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
         Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
         Closing date for applications: 20 November 1998.


title: Case F-4/08: Action brought on 5 January 2008 — Hambura v Parliament

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/50

         Action brought on 5 January 2008 — Hambura v Parliament
   (Case F-4/08)
   (2008/C 92/103)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Johannes Hambura (Soultzbach, France) (represented by: S. Hambura, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Personnel of 5 December 2007 to disallow the applicant from taking part in selection procedure PE/95/S, annul that selection procedure and carry out that selection procedure again.
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the invalidity of the decision of the Directorate-General for Personnel (Competitions Unit) of the European Parliament of 5 December 2007, which refuses the use of electronic application forms in connection with a selection procedure;

               —

               annul selection procedure PE/95/S, in respect of a female or male Doctor, published in the OJ C 244 A, 18.10.2007, and carry out the procedure again using electronic application forms;

               —

               in the alternative, decide the order in which the case is to be dealt with in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure so that the applicant is still able to take part in selection procedure PE/95/S.


title: Action brought on 28 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-88/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 19
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                 Action brought on 24 February 1997 by the Commission
to cosmetic products (*) preclude a national provision                  of the European Communities against the Federal
which contains prohibitions of statements in connection                                         Republic of Germany
with the marketing of cosmetic products which go beyond                                             ( Case C-83/97)
the restrictions contained in the Directive ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/38 )
(') OJ No L 262 , 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 24 February 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Societe Anonyme                   European Communities, with an address for service in
des Caves et des Producteurs Reunis de Roquefort                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
(Aveyron) and Others against the Commission of the                      the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                   European Communities                                 Communities, Wagner Centre, C 254, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-80/97 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 97/C 108/36 )
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
An action against the Commission of the European                               prescribed all the measures necessary in order to
Communities which had previously been brought before                           comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
the Court of First Instance was brought before the Court                        1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February                          wild fauna and flora ('), the Federal Republic of
 1997 by Societe Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs                           Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Reunis de Roquefort ( Aveyron ) and Others . That action,                       EC Treaty,
T-140/97, was the subject of an order declining
jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance referred it to             — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
 the Court of Justice in order that it might hear and                           costs .
 determine the claim for annulment.
                                                                         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 the same as in
 The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a                 Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit for transposition of the
 notice in Official Journal of the European Communities                  Directive expired on 5 June 1994 .
 No C 318 of 26 October 1996 , page 24 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992, p. 7 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .
 Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Bergpracht
 Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and others against the
           Commission of the European Communities                        Action brought on 28 February 1997 by the Commission
                            ( Case C-82/97)                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                              ( 97/C 108/37)
                                                                                ( Case C-88/ 97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/39 )
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
  the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by                         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
  Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG and others. The                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  action in question had previously been brought before the               on 28 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Court of First Instance under Case T-141/96 ; the Court of              Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
  First Instance made an order declining jurisdiction in the              of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
  case and transferred it to the Court of Justice for                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
  determination by the latter Court of the application for                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  annulment .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
   notice published in Official Journal of the European                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC
   Communities No C 336 of 9 November 1996, page 30.                             of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                                habitats and of wild fauna and flora ('), the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/20          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 4 . 97
    under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                 on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
    Treaty and Article 23 ( 1 ) of Directive 92/43/EEC,                Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and Laura
                                                                       Pignataro, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
    inform    the  Commission         of such    measures,   the       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
     under those provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, by
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                           failing to communicate within the prescribed period
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/106/
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                          EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                              common rules for certain types of combined transport
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period                    of goods between Member States ( 1 ), the Kingdom of
expired on 5 June 1994 without Portugal having brought                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
into force the necessary provisions .                                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
O OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 7.
                                                                       — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
                        ( Case C-92/97)                                those in Case C-88/97 (2 ); the time-limit for transposition
                          ( 97/C 108/40 )                              expired on 1 July 1993 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   (') OJ No L 368 , 17. 12 . 1992, p. 38 .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              fred Ungemach and Helmut Nicolaus, Rechtsanwalte,
                     of 25 February 1997                                Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
 in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke                   against Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
 Lippe-Ems GmbH v. Commission of the European                           Jiirgen Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of
                        Communities f )                                  Commission Decision 94/95/Euratom of 4 February 1994
                                                                         relating to a procedure in application of the second
  (Euratom Treaty — Action for annulment and action for                  paragraph of Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty ( OJ No
 damages — Conclusion of a contract for the supply of                    L 48 , 19 . 2 . 1994, p. 45 ), and of Commission Decision
  uranium — Simplified procedure — Powers of the Agency                   94/285/Euratom of 21 February 1994 relating to a
 — Time-limit for conclusion of the contract — Legal                     proceeding in application of the second paragraph of
  obstacle to conclusion — Diversification policy — Origin               Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty ( OJ No L 122, 17. 5 .
           of the uranium — Market-related prices)                        1994, p. 30 ), and for damages — the Court of First
                            ( 97/C 108/41 )                               Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                          composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W. Bellamy, A.
                                                                          Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and M. R. M. Moura Ramos,
                (Language of the case: German)                            Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 February 1997, in
                                                                          which it:
  In Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke
  Lippe-Ems GmbH, established in Lingen, Ems ( Germany ),
  represented by Bernd Kunth, Gerhard Wiedemann, Man                      1 . dismisses the applications;


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2002 in Case C-312/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/78/CE — Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 274/15
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                                             (First Chamber)
                       of 12 September 2002                                                        of 12 September 2002
in Case C-312/01: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-386/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Hellenic Republic ( 1)                                               ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
Directive 98/78/CE — Failure to transpose within the                                         to transpose Directive 98/7/EC)
                        prescribed time-limit)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/25)
                           (2002/C 274/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-386/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-312/01, Commission of the European Communities                    (Agent: I. Martínez del Peral) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
(Agents: C. Tufvesson and M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic                   S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by
(Agent: N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that, by                 failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
failing to adopt or to communicate to the Commission within                 provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/7/EC of the
the prescribed time-limit, all of the laws, regulations and                 European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive                amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the
98/78/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of                         States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17) or,
insurance undertakings in an insurance group (OJ 1998 L 330,                in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the
p. 1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           adoption of such provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:               to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive, the
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet                 Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
and A. Rosas, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September                   S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
2002, in which it:                                                          judgment on 12 September 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force or to communicate       1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
      to the Commission within the prescribed time-limit, all of the              the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                comply with Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament
      comply with Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament                   and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
      and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary                  87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations
      supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group,                and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            consumer credit, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      that directive;                                                             obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-345/02 (reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)): Pearle BV and Others v Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten (State aid — Definition of aid — Collective advertising campaigns in favour of one sector of the economy — Financing by means of a special contribution payable by undertakings in that sector — Action taken by a body governed by public law)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-345/02 (reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)): Pearle BV and Others v Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten (1)

   (State aid - Definition of aid - Collective advertising campaigns in favour of one sector of the economy - Financing by means of a special contribution payable by undertakings in that sector - Action taken by a body governed by public law)
   (2004/C 228/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-345/02: reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings before that court between Pearle BV and Others v Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten on the interpretation of Articles 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) and 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   On a proper construction of Articles 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) and 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC), bye-laws adopted by a trade association governed by public law for the purpose of funding an advertising campaign organised for the benefit of its members and decided on by them, through resources levied from those members and compulsorily earmarked for the funding of that campaign, do not constitute an integral part of an aid measure within the meaning of those provisions and it was not necessary for prior notification of them to be given to the Commission since it has been established that that funding was carried out by means of resources which that trade association, governed by public law, never had the power to dispose of freely.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-252/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.
   (Case C-252/11)
   2011/C 269/41
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erika Šujetová

      Defendant: Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which the court with territorial jurisdiction for the review of an arbitral award is always and only the court in whose area of jurisdiction, pursuant to an arbitration agreement or clause, the arbitration tribunal is established or the place of arbitration is situated, if the court finds that the arbitration agreement or clause is an unfair term within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the above directive?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is negative: do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude the application of a provision of national law under which a court … upon annulling an arbitral award, is to continue the main proceedings (i.e. concerning the claim originally heard before the arbitration tribunal) without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction over such continuing proceedings, even though, if the claim against the consumer had been filed from the outset with a court and not an arbitration tribunal, the court with territorial jurisdiction for the proceedings would have been, from the outset, the court of the consumer’s place of residence?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-32/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for a website — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selection criteria and award criteria — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-32/08) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for a website - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Selection criteria and award criteria - Non-contractual liability)
   2013/C 164/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis, and subsequently by M. Roli and M. Stavropoulous, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders for a market analysis in view of developing a new approach for the ‘Environment for Young Europeans’ website and, secondly, for compensation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-66/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108(3) TFEU — Freedom of establishment — State aid — Taxation of groups of companies — Acquisition of a holding in a subsidiary — Depreciation of the goodwill — Limitation on holdings in resident companies)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz
   (Case C-66/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108(3) TFEU - Freedom of establishment - State aid - Taxation of groups of companies - Acquisition of a holding in a subsidiary - Depreciation of the goodwill - Limitation on holdings in resident companies))
   (2015/C 398/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Linz

      Defendant: Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz

      Parties concerned: IFN-Holding AG, IFN Beteiligungs GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the taxation of a group of companies, allows a parent company, in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a resident company which becomes a member of such a group, to depreciate the goodwill up to a maximum of 50 % of the purchase price of the holding, while such depreciation is prohibited in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a non-resident company.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-330/01: Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.3.2002
Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel                         Finally, given the significance of the applicant in the market,
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the multiplication factor applied as regards the amount of the
                                 ties                                    fine infringes Articles 81 and 83 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                         Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (1), inasmuch as, according
                                                                         to the applicant, the Commission may only take into account
                         (Case T-330/01)                                 the seriousness and duration of the breach and may not take
                                                                         account of the economic weight attaching to the undertaking
                                                                         concerned. Moreover, an insufficient statement of reasons has
                          (2002/C 68/28)                                 been given for that multiplication factor.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        (1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81]
                                                                             and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
                                                                             p. 87).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V., established at Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by
Martijn van Empel and Christoforus Raymundus Albertus
Swaak, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                         against Council of the European Union and Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-333/01)
(1) annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s decision of
      2 October 2001 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
      alternatively annul Article 3 of the decision in conjunction                                 (2002/C 68/29)
      with point 388 in the preamble thereto, by declaring void
      the multiplication factor of 2,5 in so far as this is applied                         (Language of the case: French)
      to the applicant;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer, residing in Uturoa
                                                                         (French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant is the parent company of Akzo Nobel Chemicals              The applicant claims that the Court should:
B.V., which was in turn involved, through Glucona N.V., in a
cartel relating to the sale of sodium gluconate. In the contested        —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
decision, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine pursuant to                  ties committed an administrative fault characterised by
Article 81 of the EC Treaty.                                                   serious failure to act and by the unlawful failure to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations to implement and monitor the proper
                                                                               application in French Polynesia of decisions on the
                                                                               association of the overseas countries and territories
According to the applicant, the Commission has infringed the                   (PTOMs);
principle of proportionality and Article 253 of the EC Treaty
by failing, when fixing the fine, to take sufficient account of
                                                                         —     declare that the European Commission committed an
the limited size of the product market and the significance of
                                                                               administrative fault by providing false information to the
each undertaking in that market.
                                                                               European Parliament regarding the origin of the funds
                                                                               borrowed from the SOCREDO development bank and
                                                                               the applicant’s rights under decisions on the association
The applicant further pleads infringement of Articles 81                       of the PTOMs, which have direct effect;
and 253 of the EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
Commission has not shown that the applicant can be held                  —     declare that such failures have caused damage to the
liable for the offences committed by Glucona B.V. and the                      applicant which the European Council and the European
applicant’s subsidiary company.                                                Commission must make good;


title: Case C-354/08: Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-354/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/59

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-412/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/55

         Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)
   (Case T-412/08)
   (2008/C 301/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Seattle, United States) (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: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 1605/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant 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 ‘TRUBION’ for goods and services in classes 5 and 42

      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 No 72 884 of the word mark ‘BION’ registered for various goods; Community trade mark registration No 3 282 936 of the figurative mark ‘TriBion Harmonis’ registered for various goods

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for the goods in class 5 and rejected it for the remaining services in class 42

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal (i) failed to asses the similarity of the trade marks by taking into account the overall impression of the earlier trade mark, and (ii) failed to take into account the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular the low similarity of the goods when assessing the likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-224/06: Action brought on 22 August 2006 — Otto v OHIM — L'Altra Moda (l'Altra Moda)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/37

         Action brought on 22 August 2006 — Otto v OHIM — L'Altra Moda (l'Altra Moda)
   (Case T-224/06)
   (2006/C 281/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Otto (GmbH & Co KG) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Munz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L'Altra Moda SpA (Rome, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 22 June 2006, docket No R793/2005-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: L'Altra Moda SpA.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘l'Altra Moda’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘Alba Moda’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered the conflicting trade marks to be dissimilar.
   Violation of Article 73 of the regulation as the Board of Appeal did not inform the applicant that it intended to reject the argument of increased distinctiveness and to disregard the applicant's pleading in this regard.
   Violation of Article 74 of the regulation as the Board of Appeal did not take the necessary steps to determine the degree of distinctiveness of the trade mark ‘Alba Moda’.