title: Case T-94/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — Ferriere Nord v Commission (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Producers of reinforcing bars — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS — Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty — Lack of competence of the Commission)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — Ferriere Nord v Commission
   (Case T-94/03) (1)

   (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Producers of reinforcing bars - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS - Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty - Lack of competence of the Commission)
   (2007/C 297/76)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Ferriere Nord SpA (Osoppo, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini, G. Donà and E. Perricone, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and A. Whelan, Agents, and M. Moretto, lawyer)
   Intervener in support of the applicant:Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars) with regard to Ferriere Nord SpA;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ferriere Nord;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


               26.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/17

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights dated 22 March 2016 in the case of an appeal from the municipality of Oslo
   (Case E-5/16)
   (2017/C 26/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 22 March 2016 from the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (Klagenemnda for industrielle rettigheter), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of an appeal from the municipality of Oslo on the following questions:

               1.

               May trademark registration of copyright works, for which the protection period has expired, under certain circumstances, conflict with the prohibition in Article 3(1)(f) of the Trade Marks Directive on registering trademarks that are contrary to ‘public policy or … accepted principles of morality’?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, will it have an impact on the assessment that the copyright work is well-known and of great cultural value?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may factors or criteria other than those mentioned in question 2 have a bearing on the assessment, and, if so, which ones?

               4.

               Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC applicable to two-dimensional representations of sculptures?

               5.

               Is Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC applicable as legal authority for refusing trademarks that are two or three-dimensional representations of the shape or appearance of the goods?

               6.

               If question 5 is answered in the affirmative, is Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC to be understood to mean that the national registration authority, in assessing trademarks that consist of two or three-dimensional representations of the shape or appearance of the goods, must apply the assessment criterion of whether the design in question departs significantly from the norm or customs of the business sector, or may the grounds for refusal be that such a mark is descriptive of the shape or appearance of the goods?


title: Case C-408/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2004 (Fax: 16.9.04) by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-308/00 between Salzgitter AG, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/3

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2004 (Fax: 16.9.04) by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-308/00 between Salzgitter AG, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-408/04 P)
   (2004/C 314/06)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-308/00 between Salzgitter AG, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2004 (Fax: 16.9.04) by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Viktor Kreuschitz and Michael Niejahr, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 (1) between Salzgitter AG and the Commission of the European Communities;

               2.

               Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               3.

               Order Salzgitter AG to pay the costs.

         Pleas on appeal and main arguments:
   By the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance annulled Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2000/797/ECSC on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries. By means of the repealed provisions, the Commission ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover illegal and incompatible aid from the beneficiary.
   Pursuant to Article 1 of that decision, the special depreciation allowances and the tax-free reserves, which the applicant was granted under Article 3 of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (German law on the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the ‘ZRFG’) and of which the applicant had been the recipient in respect of eligible bases of DEM 484 million and DEM 367 million respectively, were declared by the Commission as incompatible with the common market, but were not annulled. The Zonenrandförderungsgesetz was approved by the Commission under Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty — now Article 87(2)(c) EC. The ECSC Treaty does not contain a comparable provision. Thus although the aid granted to Salzgitter AG is incompatible with the common market, it cannot be recovered.
   The judgment relies essentially on the concept that the situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and Third Steel Aid Codes was characterised by elements of uncertainty and lack of clarity, which are attributable to the Commission.
   Against this, the appellant puts forward the following four pleas in law:

               Firstly, by describing the legal situation resulting from the adoption of the First, Second and Third Steel Aid Codes as ‘being characterised by uncertainty and lack of clarity’, the Court contradicts its own case-law. According to the judgment in Case T-129/96 Preussag Stahl v Commission [1998] ECR II-609, paragraph 43, the derogations laid down in the Codes to the principle of the absolute prohibition of aid in Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty can be granted only during a period which those Codes determine. It follows from this case-law, which has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice, that neither the First nor the Second Steel Aid Codes could produce legal effects after 31 December 1981 and 31 December 1985 respectively. Since the Third Steel Aid Code came into force, it was perfectly clear that the Commission ‘shall be informed of plans to grant aid to the steel industry under schemes on which it has already taken a decision under the EEC Treaty’ (Article 6(1) of the Third Steel Aid Code, OJ L 340, 18.12.1985, p. 1). However, the first two State Aid Codes were not applied in the contested decision and are not relevant to the dispute. In any event, contrary to the finding of the Court of First Instance in the contested judgment, the first two State Aid Codes could not produce any effects outside the sphere of the ESCS.

               Secondly, the Court has not required any evidence of the fact that the Commission actually had ‘awareness of the aid received by the applicant’. Moreover, the Court has failed to examine the question of whether the annual reports, which were regularly submitted by the applicant, would have actually made it possible to identify non-notified aid.

               Thirdly, the Court seems to be of the view that the transmission of documents to the Commission outside of the procedure laid down by Article 88 EC could exclude the duty to pay back illegal aid by the mere reliance of the applicant on the principle of legal certainty.

               Finally, the judgment could be detrimental to the system of control of aid by the Commission, as it deviates from the consistent case-law of the Court, according to which an undertaking which has benefited from aid may only in principle entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful if it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that article. A diligent operator should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed (Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 14). In this judgment, the Court held that undertakings benefiting from aid could not rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, based on the principle of legal certainty, in order to avoid repayment of state aid which is incompatible with the common market.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.9.2004


title: Case C-237/17 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2017 by Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-163/14: Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/28

         Appeal brought on 8 May 2017 by Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-163/14: Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council
   (Case C-237/17 P)
   (2017/C 239/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat, S. De Knop, advocaat, M. Meulenbelt, advocaat, A. Willems, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14;

               —

               uphold the application at first instance and annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns appellants;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;

               —

               order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs;

         In the alternative

               —

               quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

               —

               reserve the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court;

               —

               order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law by requiring appellants to show an interest in raising the first and second pleas; in any event, the General Court erred in its legal characterization of the facts as the appellants have such an interest.


title: Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the judicial year 2000/2001

text:
C 212/22              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                    the ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung
                    judicial year 2000/2001                             Stahl) (OJ 1998 L 1, p. 10) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                        Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and
                                                                        M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                        (2001/C 212/39)
                                                                        has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:
At its Plenary Conference held on 3 July 2001 the Court of              1.     Annuls Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26 November
First Instance took formal note of the fact that, owing to the                 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
judicial vacation, the oath-taking ceremony before the Court                   ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung
of Justice for the new member of the Court of First Instance                   Stahl);
could not take place until after the judicial vacation and that
consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of                 2.     Orders the Commission to pay both its own costs and those of
Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the third                 the applicants.
paragraph of Article 5 of the EAEC Statute of the Court of
Justice and the third paragraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Statute
of the Court of Justice, the decision of 4 July 2000 (OJ C 259          (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98.
of 9 September 2000) on the designation of the Presidents of
Chambers, the composition of the Chambers and the assign-
ment of cases to them would continue to apply and that the
President of the Court, Mr Vesterdorf, would continue to
exercise the presidency of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 2 May 2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99: Carla Giulietti and
                                                                          Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                        of 5 April 2001
                                                                        (Officials — Competition — Action for annulment — Pre-
in Case T-16/98 Wirstschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others                selection procedure — Conduct of the tests — Principle of
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)                     equal treatment — Obligation to provide reasons — Prin-
                                                                        ciple of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle
(Competition — ECSC — Information exchange agreement                    of sound administration — Consequences for the subsequent
— Notification — Commission decision departing from the                                     conduct of the competition)
      content of the Agreement — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/41)
                        (2001/C 212/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99: Carla Giulietti, Ana
In Case T-16/98 Wirstschaftsvereinigung Stahl, established              Caprile, residing in Brussels, Fabrizio Dell’Olio, residing in
in Düsseldorf (Germany), AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke,                  Bari, Italy, Konrad Fuhrmann, Olivier Radelet, residing in
established in Dillingen (Germany), EKO Stahl GmbH, estab-              Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats,
lished in Eisenhüttenstadt (Germany), Krupp Thyssen Nirosta             with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
GmbH, established in Bochum (Germany), Thyssen Krupp                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia,
Stahl GmbH, established in Duisburg (Germany), Salzgitter               J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for annulment,
AG (formerly Preussag Stahl AG), established in Salzgitter              first, of the decision taken by the selection board in compe-
(Germany), Stahlwerke Bremen GmbH, established in Bremen                tition COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants from the tests
(Germany), Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg, rep-              subsequent to the pre-selection tests and, second, of all of the
resented by J. Sedemund, lawyer, with an address for service in         steps taken and acts done subsequently in the procedure
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                 relating that competition — the Court of First Instance (Second
ties (Agents: K. Wiedner, and H.-J. Freund) — application for           Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki
annulment of Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26 Novem-                 and J. Pirrung, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
ber 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of             Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-171/14 P: Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Eleonora Giulia Calvi against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-159/14 Eleonora Giulia Calvi v European Court of Human Rights

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/12

         Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Eleonora Giulia Calvi against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-159/14 Eleonora Giulia Calvi v European Court of Human Rights
   (Case C-171/14 P)
   (2015/C 007/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Eleonora Giulia Calvi (represented by: M. Schirò and G. Crespi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights
   By order of 9 October 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2000 in Case T-123/99: JT's Corporation Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Transparency — Access to documents — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Scope of the exception based on protection of the public interest — Inspection and investigation tasks — Authorship rule — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 372/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.12.2000
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                        of 17 October 2000
                                                                            in Case T-123/99: JT’s Corporation Ltd v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-27/99: Humbert Drabbe v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Transparency — Access to documents — Decision
                                                                            94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Scope of the exception based
                                                                            on protection of the public interest — Inspection and
(Officials — Pensions — Acquired rights — Rights acquired                   investigation tasks — Authorship rule — Statement of
before taking up post with the Commission — Transfer to                                                     reasons)
the Community scheme — Submission of application —
                            Time-limits)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/21)
                          (2000/C 372/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-123/99: JT’s Corporation Ltd, established in Bromley
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                          (United Kingdom), represented by M. Cornwell-Kelly, Solicitor,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Wilson Associates, 3 Boulevard Royal, against Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis)
In Case T-27/99: Humbert Drabbe, an official of the Com-                    — application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
mission of the European Communities, residing in Overijse                   of 11 March 1999 refusing the applicant access to certain
(Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer with the                   documents — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, and                 composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31, Grand-rue,                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     it:
F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and C. Van der Hauwaert) — appli-
cation for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of
19 October 1998, notified to Humbert Drabbe on 23 October                   1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 11 March 1999 in so far
1998, rejecting his complaint against the defendant’s decision                    as it refuses the applicant access to the mission reports of the
to transfer his pension rights acquired in the Netherlands to                     European Union from 1993 to 1996 concerning Bangladesh,
the Community pension scheme — the Court of First Instance                        including their annexes, and to the correspondence sent by the
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi                     Commission to the Government of Bangladesh concerning the
and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the                          annulment of the certificates of origin under the generalised
Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 October 2000, the operative                      system of preferences;
part of which is as follows:
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
1.    The application is dismissed.
                                                                            3.    Orders the applicant to bear one half of its own costs;
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay one
                                                                                half of the costs incurred by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case T-278/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/59

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-278/05)
   (2005/C 217/118)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 792/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B623 688 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case T-279/10: Action brought on 21 June 2010 — K-Mail Order v OHIM — IVKO (MEN’Z)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/45

         Action brought on 21 June 2010 — K-Mail Order v OHIM — IVKO (MEN’Z)
   (Case T-279/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/81
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: K-Mail Order GmbH & Co. KG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH (Baar-Wanderath, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2010 in Case R 746/2009-1;

               —

               Uphold the opposition against allowing the contested Community trade mark application; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration;

               —

               Order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark MEN’Z for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 18

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the company name ‘WENZ’ used in Germany in the course of trade for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) in conjunction with Article 41(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and infringement of Article 76(1) of that regulation as the applicant’s company name is of more than mere local significance

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


title: Case T-161/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — ARBOS v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/30

         Action brought on 23 June 2006 — ARBOS v Commission
   (Case T-161/06)
   (2006/C 212/54)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): ARBOS, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: H. Karl, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 38 545,42 plus 12 % interest since 1.1.2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus 12 % interest since 1.3.2003;

               —

               Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 26 459,38 in pre-litigation costs and bear the costs of the proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant claims compensation from the European Commission under Article 288 EC for the damage it claims to have suffered from the wrongful withholding of assistance. It bases its claim on two contracts for assistance concluded in 2000 in 2002 and each containing an arbitration clause in the annex.


title: Action brought on 22 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-364/97)

text:
C 370/4             I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 12 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                      23 November 1993 concerning the minimum health
van Beroep by judgment of that court of 24 September                         and safety requirements for work on board fishing
1997 in the case of H. Nijhuis v. Landelijk Instituut                        vessels and/or by failing to inform the Commission
                     Sociale Verzekeringen                                   thereof; and
                        ( Case C-360/97 )
                                                                        b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
                           ( 97/C 370/07 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Centrale Raad                   Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court ) of 24 September              be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
1997, received at the Court Registry on 22 October 1997,                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Nijhuis v.                   Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen on the following              down in the directive. That period expired on
questions .                                                             23 November 1995 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
1 . When applying Article 46 ( 2 ) in conjunction with
     Article 45 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , and
     on the basis of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty, is            (') OJ L 307, 13 . 12 . 1993 , p . 1 .
     point 4 ( a ) of section J of Annex VI to Regulation
     ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in the version in force at the
     material time ) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
     case of a person who has worked exclusively in the
     Netherlands in the period from 15 October 1968 to
     1 April 1974 and who was insured throughout that                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
     period against invalidity under a special scheme for               e Penale di Firenze by order of that court of 8 October
     civil servants, that period should also be taken into              1997 in the criminal proceedings against Massimo and
     account in accordance with that section of the annex                                          Paolo Romanelli
     when determining invalidity benefits ?                                                        ( Case C-366/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/09 )
2 . If so, is the competent institution for the
     determination of benefits on the basis of those periods
     the institution referred to in point 2 ( b ) of section J of       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Annex 2 to Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 or is it the               European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e
     competent institution under national law in regard to              Penale di Firenze ( Civil and Criminal District Court,
     invalidity insurance for civil servants, notwithstanding           Florence ) of 8 October 1997, received at the Court
     the fact that the latter institution is not referred to in         Registry on 24 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
     the said annex ?                                                   the criminal proceedings against Massimo and Paolo
                                                                        Romanelli on the following question :
                                                                        whether the expression 'repayable funds' contained in
                                                                        Directive 89/646/EEC (') of 15 December 1989 refers only
                                                                        to financial instruments which possess the intrinsic
Action brought on 22 October 1997 by the Commission                     characteristic of repayability or whether that expression
         of the European Communities against Ireland                    refers also to those financial instruments which, although
                                                                        not possessing that intrinsic characteristic, are the subject
                         ( Case C-364/97 )                              of a contractual agreement to repay the amount paid ?
                            ( 97/C 370/08 )
                                                                         (») OJ L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 1 .
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 October 1997
 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission
 the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
 its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.                                                          Netherlands
                                                                                Case C-367/97 )
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 10 )
 a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,                  An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      comply     with     Council     Directive    93/103 (')   of       Communities on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of


title: Case T-358/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Mubarak/Council

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/71

         Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Mubarak/Council
   (Case T-358/17)
   (2017/C 239/83)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, M. Rushton and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Contested Decision’; OJ 2017, L 76, p. 22), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Contested Regulation’; OJ 2017, L 76, p. 10), insofar as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Decision’; OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Regulation’; OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicants, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicant, and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation are illegal because (a) they lack a valid legal basis and/or (b) they breach the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the Applicant in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify re-designation were well founded in light of the representations made by the Applicant prior to re-designation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Contested Decision and Contested Regulation on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to his property, and to his reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.


title: Case T-87/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/13

         Action brought on 18 February 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-87/11)
   2011/C 120/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: GRP Security (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Osch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the applicant’s pleas in law set out in this application,

               —

               reserve to the applicant the right to produce any further legal pleas, supporting facts and evidence,

               —

               admit this action as procedurally valid,

               —

               uphold this action as to the substance,

               —

               and therefore on the above stated grounds annul the contested decisions,

               —

               reserve to the applicant the right to seek compensation for damage suffered by reason of the unlawful conduct of the Court of Auditors,

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs of the proceedings,

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Court of Auditors of the European Union concerning, first, the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant from contracts and subsidies financed by the budget of the European Union for a period of three months and, second, termination of the services framework contract No LOG/2026/10/2 titled ‘Various security services’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality, the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing, since the applicant acted in good faith and was not responsible for the false statements and misrepresentations made by one of its employees and since the Court of Auditors could have requested the replacement of the employee concerned instead of terminating the contract.

               2.

               Second plea in law: manifest error of assessment, since the Court of Auditors did not take into account all the material in the file.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Articles 93, 94 and 96 of the Financial Regulation, since the applicant did not submit any incorrect information and was not guilty of any misrepresentation in the procurement procedure for the contract in question.


title: Case T-65/10: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2013 — Spain v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Operational Programmes for ‘Andalusia’ and ‘Comunidad Valenciana’ Objective 1 (1994-1999) — Operational Programme for ‘Basque Country’ Objective 2 (1997-1999) — Extrapolation)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-65/10) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational Programmes for ‘Andalusia’ and ‘Comunidad Valenciana’ Objective 1 (1994-1999) - Operational Programme for ‘Basque Country’ Objective 2 (1997-1999) - Extrapolation)
   2013/C 108/54
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, and subsequently by A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decisions C(2009) 9270 of 30 November 2009, C(2009) 10678 of 23 December 2009 and C(2010) 337 of 28 January 2010 reducing the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted under, respectively, the operational programme ‘Andalusia’ Objective 1 (1994-1999) under Commission Decision C(94) 3456 of 9 December 1994, the operational programme ‘Basque Country’ Objective 2 (1997-1999) under Commission Decision C(1998) 121 of 5 February 1998, and the operational programme ‘Comunidad Valenciana’ Objective 1 (1994-1999) under Commission Decision C(1994) 3043/6 of 25 November 1994

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-254/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Kühne + Nagel International AG and Others v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/31

         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Kühne + Nagel International AG and Others v Commission
   (Case T-254/12)
   2012/C 227/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kühne + Nagel International AG (Schindelligi, Switzerland), Kühne + Nagel Management AG (Schindellegi, Switzerland), Kühne +Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom), Kühne +Nagel Ltd (Shanghai, China), Kühne +Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. Klöppner and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39462 — Freight Forwarding pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               In the alternative, reduce the level of the fines imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission imposed a fine on the applicants because of participation in four different cartels in connection with the NES, AMS, CAF and PSS surcharges.
   In support of the action concerning all the surcharges, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:

               —

               The imposition of the fine on the applicants is unlawful because of errors in the exercise of its discretion: first, the Commission wrongly determined the relevant turnover because the turnover relied upon by it bears no direct or indirect relationship to the infringement; second, and wrongly, no account was taken of the mitigating factors applicable to the applicants;

               —

               The level of the fines imposed infringes the principle of proportionality and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Owing to the peculiarities of the freight sector, the fines imposed by the Commission are grossly disproportionate and infringe Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

               —

               The applicants’ defence rights were infringed when the Commission rejected the application made by letter of 30 November 2011 for access to the file (to the file in Case COMP/39.258), thereby unlawfully restricting the applicants’ defence rights.

         In support of the claim in relation to the NES and AMS surcharges, the applicants also rely on the following pleas in law:

               —

               Trade between the Member States is not affected. The Commission misapplied the law, since the conditions for application of Article 101(1) TFEU (effect on trade between Member States) are not satisfied;

               —

               The Commission misapplied the law by wrongly assuming the power to sanction infringements in the air transport sector under Article 101(1) TFEU; the Commission in any case unlawfully failed to grant an exemption under Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector. The Commission did not have the legal power to sanction infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU by fines because before 1 May 2004 there was no implementing regulation for aviation and air transport between the Union and third countries was therefore exempt (‘air transport exemption’);

               —

               The duration of the infringement was wrongly and unlawfully evaluated by the Commission in relation to the applicants. The Commission misapplied the law and failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision in relation to the commencement date for the applicants. The applicants participated in the cartels regarding the NES surcharge from 4 November 2002 at the earliest and regarding the AMS surcharge from 21 October 2003 at the earliest.


title: Case T-134/16: Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées v ECB

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/31

         Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées v ECB
   (Case T-134/16)
   (2016/C 175/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées (Albi, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/100) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-133/16, Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2001 in Case T-9/98: Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Extension of the period for completion of investment projects qualifying for a premium — General aid scheme — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Act of direct and individual concern to the applicant — Interest in bringing proceedings — Additional aid — Investment aid or operating aid — Principle of proportionality)

text:
2.2.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 31/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 22 November 2001                                                         of 23 October 2001
in Case T-9/98: Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie GmbH v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                         in Case T-155/99: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Extension of the period for completion of
investment projects qualifying for a premium — General aid
scheme — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Act of                     (Common Agricultural Policy — Decision 1999/244/EC
direct and individual concern to the applicant — Interest in               amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
bringing proceedings — Additional aid — Investment aid or                  countries from which the import of fishery products is
         operating aid — Principle of proportionality)                     authorised for human consumption — Non-contractual
                                                                                liability of the Community)
                          (2002/C 31/12)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/13)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-9/98: Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie GmbH, estab-
lished in Spergau, Germany, represented initially by M. Schütte
and M. Maier, lawyers, and subsequently by Mr Schütte and
J. Lüdicke, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             In Case T-155/99: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    in Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.J. Rabe, lawyer, with
V. Kreuschitz and P. Nemitz) — application for annulment                   an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
of Commission Decision 98/194/EC of 1 October 1997                         the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and G. Ber-
concerning the extension of the 8 % investment premium for                 scheid) — application for, first, annulment of Commission
investment projects in the new Länder pursuant to the Finance              Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999 amending Decision
Law 1996 (OJ 1998 L 73, p. 38) — the Court of First Instance               97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which
(Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh,               the import of fishery products is authorised for human
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and               consumption (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 37) and, secondly, damages
N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the               for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                    Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
which it:                                                                  R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzá-
                                                                           lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           23 October 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/194/EC of 1 October 1997
      concerning the extension of the 8% investment premium for
      investment projects in the new Länder pursuant to the Finance        1.    Dismisses the application;
      Law 1996 in so far as it concerns the situation of the applicant;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those               Commission.
      incurred by the applicant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.98.


title: Case T-351/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/21

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission
   (Case T-351/06)
   (2007/C 20/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Dura Vermeer Groep NV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Groep is concerned; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its application the claimant first submits that the Commission has breached Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the claimant's view, the Commission's analysis is incorrect with regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance on parent company liability for an alleged breach by subsidiaries. The Commission for that reason imposed an excessively strict test on the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant alleges, the Commission misrepresented the factual description of the applicable relationships within the Dura Vermeer concern. The Commission therefore failed to demonstrate that the claimant exercised a determining influence over the conduct of Vermeer Infrastructuur BV.
   Second, the claimant alleges infringement of the essential procedural requirements set out in Article 253 EC and of the principle that reasons must be given.


title: Case C-240/01: Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 245/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.9.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   budgetary plan. For the same reason, the co-financing
                                                                              regulation in dispute amounts to a circumvention of the
                                                                              budgetary provision in the first paragraph of
1.    annul Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC)                        Article 269 EC. Moreover, the capping of own resources
      No 690/2001 of 3 April 2001 on special market support                   in accordance with Articles 269 and 270 EC would not
      measures in the beef sector (1), in so far as that provision            constitute an effective limit on Community expenditure
      requires the Member State concerned to finance 30 % of                  if the Commission had the power to order Community
      the cost of the meat purchase referred to in that                       expenditure without it being totally financed by the
      regulation;                                                             Community budget. By acting in that way, the procedure
                                                                              laid down in the second paragraph of Article 269 EC,
                                                                              requiring not only a unanimous decision of the Council
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  (after consultation with the Parliament) but also a ratifi-
                                                                              cation of that decision by the Parliaments of the Member
                                                                              States, could easily be circumvented.
                                                                        —     Infringement of Article 253 EC. Reference to the limited
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               nature of budgetary resources does not explain either
                                                                              with what justification the Commission purports to
                                                                              modify the principle of total financing of support
                                                                              measures in the beef sector by the Community budget by
                                                                              establishing compulsory co-financing, or why basis for
                                                                              allocation of 70 % — 30 % was necessary.
—     The Commission had no power to order a compulsory co-
      financing in the context of an implementing regulation.
      Article 5(5) of the contested regulation does not serve to
      ‘implement’ a corresponding general provision of the
      basic regulation, allowing co-financing in principle.             The applicant suggests that, in so far as it allows the action,
      Rather, it represents a clear departure from the provisions       the Court should maintain the effects of the regulation in order
      of Council Regulations Nos 1254/1999 and 1258/1999,               to protect the position of the operators concerned.
      which assume 100 % financing from the Community
      budget. The question of the financing of a specific support
      measure in the agricultural sector necessarily forms part
      of the essential features of the subject-matter of the            (1) OJ L 95, 5.4.2001, p. 8.
      legislation, which must be governed in the basic Council
      regulation. That is especially so since all the decisive
      questions on the financing of the common agricultural
      policy — including the Community beef market — are
      dealt with by Council Regulation No 1258/1999 (or
      Council Regulation No 1883/78, as the case may be).
—     Infringement of the financial provisions of the Treaty. By
      virtue of the system of the common organisation of the
      market in beef and the prohibition of State aid laid down
      by Article 87(1) EC, expressly confirmed in the thirty-
                                                                        Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Commission of
      third recital in the preamble to Regulation
                                                                        the European Communities against the Federal Republic
      No 1254/1999, the support measures provided for by
                                                                                of Germany
      the contested regulation constitute, despite the partial
      financing by national budgetary resources, Community
      aid and therefore ‘expenditure of the Community’ within
      the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 268 EC. In                                   (Case C-240/01)
      accordance with that latter provision, ‘all items of revenue
      and expenditure of the Community [...] shall be included
      in estimates to be drawn up for each financial year and
      shall be shown in the budget’. The use of the adjective ‘all’                              (2001/C 245/12)
      (revenue and expenditure) in the first paragraph of
      Article 268 EC establishes the principle of the complete-
      ness/unity of the budget, which is a basic condition for a
      political weighting of revenue and expenditure in the             An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      budget procedure and democratic control of the                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      execution of the budget. That basic principle is not              ties on 21 June 2001 by the Commission of the European
      complied with where Community expenditure is (par-                Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser,
      tially) financed on the basis of an imperative regulation         and Kilian Gross, a member of the Legal Service, with an
      of secondary law from sources that are not part of the            address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 245/7
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil
                                                                         d’État, Judicial Section, by decision of that court of 28 May
1.    declare that by applying Paragraph 4(1) Nr. 2(b) of the            2001 in the case of National Farmers’ Union against the
      Mineralölsteuergesetz (law on the taxation of mineral                     General Secretariat of the French Government
      oils) the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Council Directive 92/81/EEC of                                           (Case C-241/0l)
      19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures
      of excise duties on mineral oils (1) inasmuch as it fails to
      charge excise duty on all mineral oils intended to be used                                    (2001/C 245/13)
      for heating;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            European Communities by decision of the Conseil d’État
                                                                         (French Council of State) Judicial Section, of 28 May 2001,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 22 June 2001, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of National Farmers’ Union
                                                                         against the General Secretariat of the French Government on
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the following questions:
                                                                         (1) whether, having regard to the legislative nature of Com-
The action concerns the rule laid down in Paragraph 4(1)                       mission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 (1)
Nr. 2(b) of the German Mineralölsteuergesetz, and in particular                and Commission Decision 99/514/EC of 23 July 1999 (2),
the interpretation given to it in the Decree of the Bundesminis-               and notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for
ter der Finanzen (Federal Minister of Finances) of 2 February                  challenging them, a Member State may validly invoke
1998 (III A 1 — V 0355 — 10/97). Under that decree,                            significant changes in the factual or legal circumstances
‘combustion’ was to be understood as meaning only the                          occurring after the expiry of that time-limit, where the
intentional use of the thermal value of a material, i.e. the total             changes in question are such as to cast doubt on the
or partial combustion of mineral oil for the production of heat                decisions’ validity;
to be transmitted wholly or partially to another material. That
other material, to which heat is transmitted, must thereby               (2) whether, at the date of the decisions taken by the French
acquire the character of a new carrier of energy or heat. The                  authorities, the abovementioned Commission decisions
use of the new heat carrier as a means of heating justifies the                were valid, having regard to the precautionary principle
conclusion that the mineral oil used to produce that heat                      laid down in Article 174 of the Treaty establishing the
carrier has been heated. In accordance with that interpretation,               European Community;
there is no ‘heating’ where the material receiving the energy
from the combustion is itself subjected to heat with a view to
the manufacture of a product and it thereby loses its material           (3) whether a Member State may draw from the provisions
characteristics. The same must therefore apply where the                       of Article 30 EC (formerly Article 36 of the EC Treaty)
flame comes into direct contact with the material to be                        the power to prohibit imports of agricultural products
worked/transformed or destroyed. Nor can there be ‘combus-                     and live animals, inasmuch as Directives 89/662/EEC (3)
tion’ where a pilot light is maintained with mineral oil in order              and 90/425/EEC (4) cannot be regarded as harmonising
to burn harmful gas emissions or where mineral oil is mixed                    the measures needed in order to attain the specific
in a combustion chamber with emissions that are to be                          objective of protecting the health and life of humans
destroyed and is completely consumed.                                          provided for by that article.
                                                                         (1) Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 November 1998
According to the Commission, that interpretation infringes                   amending Decision 98/256/EC as regards certain emergency
Article 2(2) of Directive 92/81. The words used in that                      measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy
provision, namely ‘intended for use ... as heating fuel’ must be             (OJ L 328 of 4.12.1998, p. 28).
interpreted independently and in the light of Community law.             (2) Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the
The wording, purpose and system of the directive support the                 date on which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine
interpretation that ‘combustion’ must be interpreted in broad                products under the date-based export scheme may commence by
terms and that any consumption of mineral oil for heating                    virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ L 195 of
must be regarded as a combustion. In particular, it appears to               28.7.1999, p. 42).
be irrelevant whether the heat produced is used indirectly by            (3) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning
means of a heat carrier for the warming of an object, or                     veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the
                                                                             completion of the internal market (OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989,
directly, in order to initiate or continue a chemical or industrial
                                                                             p. 13).
process.                                                                 (4) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
                                                                             veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra- Com-
                                                                             munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
                                                                             the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224 of 18.8.1990,
(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.                                             p. 29).


title: Case C-331/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Produzione SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Produzione SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
   (Case C-331/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.On Produzione SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Case C-485/15: Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Aeroporto Valerio Catullo di Verona Villafranca SpA v Società per l’Aeroporto Civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA), Società Aeroporto Brescia e Montichiari SpA (Abem SpA) and Others

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Aeroporto Valerio Catullo di Verona Villafranca SpA v Società per l’Aeroporto Civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA), Società Aeroporto Brescia e Montichiari SpA (Abem SpA) and Others
   (Case C-485/15) (1)

   (2016/C 078/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 15 January 1997 in Case T-77/95: Syndicat Français de l'Express International and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for annulment - Rejection of a complaint - Community interest)

text:
No C 54/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             — application for a declaration that the European
                         (Third Chamber )                             Parliament has failed, in breach of Article 175 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty, to propose to the competent institutions of the
                      of 15 January 1997                              European Union amendments to the Staff Regulations of
in Case T-77/95 : Syndicat Français de l'Express                      Officials which would have enabled the applicant to
International and Others v. Commission of the European                remain covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme —
                          Communities (')                             the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                      A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
(Competition — Action for annulment — Rejection of a                  Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
              complaint — Community interest)                         26 November 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                           ( 97/C 54/31 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-77/95 : Syndicat Français de l'Express                      2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
International, established in Roissy-en-France, France,
DHL International , established in Roissy-en-France,
Service CRIE , established in Paris , and May Courier,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
established in Paris, represented by Eric Morgan de
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 avenue
Guillaume v. Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : originally Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jean-Francis Pasquier, and subsequently Richard Lyal and
Jean-Francis Pasquier ) — application for annulment of                                      of 26 November 1996
Commission Decision SG ( 94 ) D/ 19144 of 30 December                 in Case T-167/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Council of
1994 rejecting the complaint of 21 December 1990 by                                        the European Union (')
Syndicat Français de l'Express International — the Court
of First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B.                  (Action for declaration of failure to act — Former officials
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki , Judges; J.                      — Social security — Admissibility)
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                            ( 97/C 54/33 )
given a judgment on 15 January 1997, in which it:
 1 . Dismisses the application.                                                      (Language of the case: German)
2 . Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                           In Case T-167/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
                                                                      spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                       residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
                                                                      Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin
                                                                      Machmer, 1 rue Roger Barthel , Bereldange, v. Council of
                                                                      the European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan
                                                                      Peter Hix ) — application for a declaration that the
                                                                      Council has failed, in breach of Article 175 of the EC
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      Treaty, to propose to the competent institutions of the
                     of 26 November 1996                              European Union amendments to the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials which would have enabled the applicant to
in Case T- 164/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. European
                                                                      remain covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme —
                           Parliament (')
                                                                      the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:
 (Action for declaration of failure to act — Former officials         A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
              — Social security — Admissibility)                      Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                            ( 97/C 54/32 )
                                                                      26 November 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-164/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,               2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg), represented by Dieter
Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for               (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin
Machmer, 1 rue Roger Barthel , Bereldange, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Christian Pennera and Hans Krück )


title: Case C-185/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten i Stockholms län) — Ulf Öberg v Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa (Freedom of movement for workers — Officials and servants of the European Communities — Parental benefits — Taking into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten i Stockholms län) — Ulf Öberg v Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa
   (Case C-185/04) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Officials and servants of the European Communities - Parental benefits - Taking into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)
   (2006/C 131/19)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Länsrätten i Stockholms län
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulf Öberg

      Defendant: Försäkringskassan, länskontoret Stockholm, formerly Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Länsrätten i Stockholms län — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17(2), 18 and 39 EC, Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (English Special Edition: 1968(II), p. 475) and Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Entitlement to parental benefit (foräldrapenning) — Account not taken of a period during which the worker was covered by the Joint Sickness insurance scheme pursuant to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 39 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings applies, the period during which a worker was affiliated to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities must be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.


title: Case T-298/13: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014  — LemonAid Beverages v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (LemonAid) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/32

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — LemonAid Beverages v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (LemonAid)
   (Case T-298/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 026/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LemonAid Beverages GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Natzel, lawyers, and P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Pret a Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and S. Croxon, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2013 (Case R 276/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pret à Manger (Europe) Ltd and LemonAid Beverages GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.2.2013.


title: Case T-71/17: Action brought on 26 January 2017 — France.com v EUIPO — France (FRANCE.com)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/40

         Action brought on 26 January 2017 — France.com v EUIPO — France (FRANCE.com)
   (Case T-71/17)
   (2017/C 112/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: France.com, Inc. (Coral gables, Florida, Unite States) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: French Republic

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRANCE.com’ — Application for registration No 13 158 597

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2016 in Case R 2452/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               submit the following preliminary questions to the Court of Justice: (i) In the light of Articles 8(2) and 41(1) of the European Trade Marks Regulation and of Rules 15(2)(b) and 17 of the European Union Trade Marks Implementing Regulation, in an opposition procedure, does the Applicant, as the defendant to the opposition have the right to invoke prior rights, which could constitute prior rights to the earlier trademark used as a prior right in the opposition? (ii) Does the French State have any kind of prior intellectual property right on the word ‘France’ which is not the official name of the French State and which is just a geographical entity? (iii) If the answer to the question (ii) is ‘No’, should the name ‘France’ be considered as a word which is in the public domain and on which no one can claim any intellectual property right? (iv) If the answer to the question (ii) is ‘Yes’, should the fact that the French State as of this day has never claim any rights in the word ‘France’ except against France.com be considered as a discrimination against the Applicant?

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               rejects the opposition filed by the French State against the registration of the European semi-figurative trademark ‘France.com’ applied for by France.com Inc.;

               —

               dismiss the action as to the remainder;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by France.com Inc. for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court;

               —

               order EUIPO and the French State each to pay half of the costs necessarily incurred by France.com Inc. for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rules 15(2)(b) and 17 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-381/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Industrial Policy — Food hygiene — Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 — Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien
   (Case C-381/10) (1)

   (Industrial Policy - Food hygiene - Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - Installation of a washbasin in the toilets of an establishment which sells food)
   2011/C 347/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astrid Preissl KEG

      Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1) and in particular of the word Handwaschbecken (washbasin for cleaning hands) contained in the German language version of that provision — Administrative decision of a Member State ordering the installation in the toilets of a café of a washbasin equipped with materials for hygienic washing and drying of hands

      Operative part of the judgment

   Paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as not requiring that a washbasin within the meaning of that provision be used exclusively for washing hands or that it be possible to use the water tap or hand-drying material without touching by hand.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.