20.3.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/43
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of articles 43 and             2001 (1). According to the applicant article 4 paragraph 2 of
                              15 of Regulation 40/94 (1).                 Regulation 1049/2001 does not justify a blanket exclusion of
                                                                          the Commission’s pleadings from the principle of open access
                                                                          to Community documents, nor does it give the Commission
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           the right to refuse access to its pleadings merely because the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                   matter itself or related proceedings are still pending.
                                                                          (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                              European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,
                                                                              Official Journal L 145, 31/05/2001 P. 43-48.
Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Association de la
Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. (‘API’) against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-89/02 (1)
                         (Case T-36/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/75)
                         (2004/C 71/74)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          By order of 25 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                T-89/02: Check Point Softward Limited v Office for the
European Communities on 2 February 2004 by Association                    Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
de la Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. (‘API’), Brussels, Belguim,          Design) (OHIM).
represented by Mr S. Völcker, Mr F. Louis and Mr J. Heithecker,
lawyers.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision D(2003) 30621 of 20 Nov-
      ember 2003 in its entirety and;
—     Order the Commission to bear the costs.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-307/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/76)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant is a non-profit organisation of foreign journalists
based in Belgium, aiming to assist its members in reporting
back to their home countries about the European Union. It                 By order of 19 November 2003 the President of the Second
applied to the Commission for access to all the submissions               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
made by the Commission in the course of certain proceedings               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
before the European Court of Justice and the European Court               T-307/02: Altana Pharma AG v Office for the Harmonisation
of First Instance. Such access was denied by the contested                of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
decision.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
In support of its application the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of Articles 2 and 4, paragraph 2, of Regulation 1049/


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-141/03, Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (State Aid — Equity loan — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 April 2005
   in Case T-141/03, Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State Aid - Equity loan - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 171/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-141/03: Sniace SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Baró Fuentes, lawyer, supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: N. Díaz Abad, with an address for service in Luxembourg) against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaolalla Gadea and J. Buendía Sierra, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/284/EC of 11 December 2002 on the State aid implemented by Spain for Sniace SA (OJ 2003 L 108, p. 35) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger, F. Dehousse, E. Cremona and O. Czúcz, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case T-116/02: Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu against Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 144/59
Mark or sign right cited      The German national figurative              but was mislaid within the Commission’s services. The appli-
in opposition:                marks ‘a’ for goods in Class 25             cant was thus unable properly to discharge his financial
                              (inter alia, clothing)                      obligations and was required to pay a penalty. As the
                                                                          administrative fault on the Commission’s part is proved, the
Decision of Opposition        Refusal of application for regis-           applicant is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and
Division:                     tration of mark                             non-pecuniary harm sustained.
Decision of Board of          Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division with respect
                              to goods in Classes 9, 16, 35 and
                              41; affirmation of the decision
                              with respect to goods in Class 25
Pleas in law:                 —     No similarity with the rel-
                                    evant goods in Class 25
                                                                          Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.
                              —     Significant difference from             against the Commission of the European Communities
                                    the figurative marks
                                                                                (Case T-121/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/115)
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-116/02)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2002/C 144/114)                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by Professor Franco Gallo, Gabriele Escalar and
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Professor Adriano Rossi, Lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu,                   —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, avocat.                      Communities of 11 December 2001 no C54/A/2000/EC,
                                                                                unpublished, declaring incompatible with the internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     market the system of State aid laid down by Italian
                                                                                legislation in the form of tax advantages for banks and
                                                                                banking institutions;
—     order the Commission to make reparation for the pecuni-
      ary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicant,
      amounting to EUR 353;                                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                                and all consequential costs.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official of the Commission and at the                 The main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case
material time was on temporary secondment to the Court of                 T-36/02 ABI v Commission (1).
Justice.
In support of his claim for damages, the applicant alleges that           (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002, p. 14.
the Commission’s mail service received a letter from an Italian
professional body addressed to the applicant and containing a
demand for payment. The letter did not reach the applicant


title: Case C-123/12: Order of the President of the Forth Chamber of the Court of 10 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/8

         Order of the President of the Forth Chamber of the Court of 10 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu
   (Case C-123/12) (1)

   2013/C 304/15
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Forth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case T-97/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/38

         Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)
   (Case T-97/15)
   (2015/C 127/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ines di Lelio (Rome, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma’ — Community trade mark No 3 108 289

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 656/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 insofar as it relates to Rule 20(2) of that regulation;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C- 118/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Travail de Mons (Eighth Chamber) by order of that court of 20 March 2000 in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants

text:
C 163/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                   conserve habitat and avoid erosion, and, moreover, it has
                                                                              failed to avoid habitat deterioration negatively affecting
                                                                              wild bird species of Annex 1 of the Birds Directive as well
                                                                              as regularly occurring migratory species present on the
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to              Complex, the decline of which is not disputed by the Irish
    comply with Article 3 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) in                      authorities.
    respect of the Red Grouse (Lagopus lagopus), and with
    Article 4(4), first sentence, of Directive 79/409/EEC and
    Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) in respectf of the           (1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex Special Protection Area,                     vation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).
    Ireland has failed to comply with these Directives and with          (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
    its obligations under the Treaty,                                        of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
                                                                             22.7.1992, p. 7).
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          de Mons (Eighth Chamber) by order of that court of
                                                                         20 March 2000 in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
                                                                         National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indé-
                                                                                pendants
1) Failure to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient
    diversity and area of habitats for Red Grouse                                                  (Case C- 118/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/24)
    Having regard to the identification of Red Grouse as one
    of the 12 most threatened breeding bird species in Ireland,          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the dependancy of Red Grouse on hill-land and bog                    European Communities by an order of the Cour de Travail
    habitat, the dependancy of Red Grouse on heather, which              (Labour Court), Mons (Eighth Chamber) of 20 March 2000,
    is known to be seriously affected by overgrazing, the                which was received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2000,
    recognition of the need for hill-land and bog habitat                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
    conservation measures to benefit the Red Grouse, the                 National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
    emergence and persistence of a widespread problem of                 on the following questions:
    sheep overgrazing on hill-land and bog habitat associated
    with Red Grouse since 1981, the ineffectiveness of
                                                                         1. Must Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be
    measures to combat this overgrazing, the evidence of
                                                                              interpreted as being applicable to the situation of a person
    significant decline in the range of the Red Grouse and the
                                                                              covered by social insurance, as a self-employed worker,
    preventive and precautionary principles, the Commission
                                                                              who has instituted legal proceedings against an adminis-
    considers that Ireland has failed to meet its obligations to
                                                                              trative decision of the institution responsible for the social
    safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for
                                                                              security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
    the species in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
                                                                              the EU applying an anti-overlapping rule of European
    79/409/EEC (the Birds Directive):
                                                                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles 12 and 46), that
                                                                              decision having been confirmed by the national court
                                                                              hearing the case in that Member State and the judgment
2) Damage to Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex SPA                                  not having been notified by the parties and therefore
                                                                              remaining subject to appeal, even though a decision given
                                                                              by the CJEC after that judgment, in a similar case,
                                                                              interpreting Articles 12 and 46 of that regulation, held
    Inasmuch as Ireland has allowed a problem of overgrazing                  that a Community anti-overlapping rule should not be
    to occur in the Complex since 1981, it must be considered                 applied in those circumstances in so far as such application
    to have failed to respect Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC             of Article 95a(5) by the national institution responsible
    (the Habitats Directive), and, prior to the coming into force             for the social security of self-employed workers to the
    of that provision, Article 4(4), first sentence, of the Birds             abovementioned insured person, following the judgment
    Directive. To the extent that Ireland relies on State                     of the CJEC, to ensure that the rights of that insured person
    acquisition, the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme                    are reviewed, and Article 95a(5) limit the effects of the
    and related measures to safeguard the Complex, it cannot                  abovementioned CJEC judgment, it being necessary, in
    be considered to have taken all the appropriate measures                  order, in the event of proceedings being brought, to give
    in relation to Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. In                 effect to the said Article 95a(5), for a new application to
    particular, Ireland has not ensured that, over the entire                 be made by the insured with respect to his rights and for a
    area of the Complex, sheep stocking rates are such as to                  new decision to be adopted thereafter?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/15
2. Does the fact that that institution responsible for the social         Pleas in law and main arguments
     security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
     the EC applied Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to
     1408/71 in the situation described in the first question
     constitute, in the circumstances in which it was applied, a          those set out in Case C-105/00 (2); the implementation period
                                                                          set by the directive expired on 30 December 1998.
     serious infringement of Community law within the mean-
     ing of the case-law of the CJEC where that institution has
     already infringed Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles
                                                                          (1) OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.
     12 and 46), as stated in the judgment of the CJEC of                 (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
     2 August 1993 in a similar case and the social security
     institution recognises that fact in the proceedings and the
     court hearing the case has given a ruling to that effect by
     judgment of 10 February 1999 and where, following
     correspondence between the Commission of the European
     Communities and the Member State, the Minister respon-
     sible for the national social security institution asked the
     latter to regularise the situation of the migrant worker and
     that institution acceded to that request by applying the             Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of
     abovementioned Article 95a(5)?                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on                                    (Case C-120/00)
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons
    and their families moving within the Community (OJ English
    special edition, 1971 (II) p. 416).                                                              (2000/C 163/26)
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service,
Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
                             Luxembourg
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
                           (Case C-119/00)
                                                                          — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                           (2000/C 163/25)                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                               Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                               89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                               down by law, regulation or administrative action in
ties on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                               Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
Communities, represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser,
                                                                               casting activities (1) and/or by failing to inform the Com-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                               mission thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s
                                                                               obligations under that directive;
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the             The pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to
     Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive                   those set out in Case C-119/00 (2); the implementation period
     89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid            set by the directive expired on 30 December 1998.
     down by law, regulation or administrative action in
     Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
     casting activities (1) and/or by failing to inform the Com-          (1) OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.
     mission thereof, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has                   (2) See p. 15 of this Official Journal.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-301/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Cascina Tre Pini s.s. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Lombardia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Consorzio Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Comune di Somma Lombardo (Request for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Sites of Community importance — Review of status in the event of pollution or degradation of the environment — National legislation not providing for persons concerned to request such a review — Attribution to the competent national authorities of a discretionary power to undertake of their own motion a review procedure of that status)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Cascina Tre Pini s.s. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Lombardia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Consorzio Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Comune di Somma Lombardo
   (Case C-301/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Sites of Community importance - Review of status in the event of pollution or degradation of the environment - National legislation not providing for persons concerned to request such a review - Attribution to the competent national authorities of a discretionary power to undertake of their own motion a review procedure of that status))
   2014/C 159/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cascina Tre Pini s.s.

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Lombardia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Consorzio Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Comune di Somma Lombardo

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Sites of Community importance (SCI) — Review of SCI status in the event of pollution or degradation of the environment — No provision under national legislation for the persons concerned to request such a review — Discretion conferred on the competent authorities as regards initiation of the procedure for review of SCI status — No regular appraisal of the conditions for initiating a review of SCI status — No obligation to inform the persons concerned of such a procedure

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 4(1), 9 and 11 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States are required to propose to the European Commission the declassification of a site on the list of sites of Community importance, where those authorities have received a request from the owner of land included in that site, alleging an environmental degradation of the site, provided that that request is based on the fact that, despite compliance with the provisions of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive, that site can definitively no longer contribute to the conservation of natural habitats and of the wild fauna and flora or the setting up of the Natura 2000 network;

               2)

               Articles 4(1), 9 and 11 of Directive 92/43, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which a power is conferred on the regional and local authorities alone to propose the adaptation of the list of the sites of Community importance, but not on the State, even to act in lieu of the regional or local authorities in the event that they fail to act, provided that that allocation of power does not prevent the proper application of the provisions of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case T-867/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/21

         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission
   (Case T-867/16)
   (2017/C 046/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nomacorc (Thimister-Clermont, Belgium) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Stroungi and L. Mélia, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2016 on State Aid SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) on the Excess Profit Exemption State aid Scheme implemented by Belgium (‘the contested decision’) (1);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2) by incorrectly qualifying the excess profit rulings as a scheme, thereby committing various manifest errors of law, fact and assessment and also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference system for purposes of assessing whether the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 2015, p. 9)


title: Case C-636/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Consumer protection — Food safety — Public information — Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-636/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Consumer protection - Food safety - Public information - Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk)
   2013/C 156/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karl Berger

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht München I — Interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1) — Scope ratione temporis — Rules of national law under which the public may be informed in cases where a foodstuff which is unfit for consumption and nauseating in appearance, but which does not constitute a specific risk to health, is placed on the market

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation allowing information to be issued to the public mentioning the name of a food and the name or trade name of the food manufacturer, processor or distributor, in a case where that food, though not injurious to health, is unfit for human consumption. The second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as allowing, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, national authorities to issue such information to the public in accordance with the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-415/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Tebaldi and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — Promotions procedure 2003 — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Tebaldi and Others v Commission
   (Case T-415/04) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - Promotions procedure 2003 - Refusal of promotion - Award of promotion points - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2007/C 140/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Vittoria Tebaldi (Brussels, Belgium); Vicente Tejero Gazo (Tervuren, Belgium); Victor Gonzalez Martinez (Brussels); and Alessandro Giovannetti (Ernster, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers; subsequently by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Kramer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, principally, of the list of officials promoted to a higher grade in the 2003 promotions procedure, insofar as that list does not include the names of the applicants, and of the preparatory measures for that decision and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the decision awarding promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case F-119/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Martens and Olsson v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/47

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Martens and Olsson v Commission
      (Case F-119/13) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/60)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Lieve Martens (Kessel-Lo, Belgium) and Björn Mikael Olsson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decisions relating to the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which apply the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Ms Lieve Martens and Mr Björn Mikael Olsson shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 28/4/2014, p. 37.


title: Case T-251/13: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Gemeente Nijmegen v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by a Netherlands municipality in favour of a professional football club — Decision to open the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Aid measure completely implemented on the date of the decision — Admissibility — Challengeable act)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/49

         Order of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Gemeente Nijmegen v Commission
   (Case T-251/13) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by a Netherlands municipality in favour of a professional football club - Decision to open the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Aid measure completely implemented on the date of the decision - Admissibility - Challengeable act))
   (2015/C 138/64)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Gemeente Nijmegen (Netherlands) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. van der Heul, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1152 final of 6 March 2013 concerning the aid granted to Netherlands professional football clubs Vitesse, NEC, Willem II, MVV, PSV and FC Den Bosch between 2008 and 2011 (State aid SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2)

               Gemeente Nijmegen is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case F-134/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (Civil service — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of the request for assistance — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Request for transfer of pension rights — Withdrawal of the request for transfer of pension rights during the proceedings — No need to adjudicate on the rejection of the request for assistance)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/42

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
      (Case F-134/11) (1)

      ((Civil service - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of the request for assistance - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Request for transfer of pension rights - Withdrawal of the request for transfer of pension rights during the proceedings - No need to adjudicate on the rejection of the request for assistance))
      (2016/C 364/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppen, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, subsequently by S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, next by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and last by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following the withdrawal of a transfer proposal accepted by the applicants after a reasonable period had elapsed for the purposes of benefiting from the possibility of transferring their pension rights.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission.

                  2.

                  Mr Giorgio Cocchi, Ms Nicola Falcione and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

         (1)  OC C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 23.


title: Case C-515/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Decision 2003/33/EC — National legislation — Landfill for inert waste — Acceptance of asbestos- cement waste)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-515/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Decision 2003/33/EC - National legislation - Landfill for inert waste - Acceptance of asbestos- cement waste)
   2012/C 32/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Marghelis, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) and the provisions of the Annex to Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ 2002 L 11, p. 27) — National legislation establishing a category of ‘inert and hazardous’ wastes, not in compliance with the directive — Landfill of asbestos-cement waste

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that asbestos-cement waste is treated in suitable landfills, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and the provisions of the Annex to Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-44/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt
   (Case C-44/12)
   2012/C 109/10
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrius Kulikauskas

      Defendants: Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

      Questions referred

               1.

               With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC) (1), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of a woman's (‘B's’) pregnancy?

               2.

               With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of the pregnancy of a woman (‘B’) who is (i) his partner, or (ii) otherwise associated with him?

      (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
   OJ L 204, p. 23


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 April 1998 in Case C-158/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie (Freedom to provide services - Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State - Prior authorisation of the competent institution - Public health - Dental treatment)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/5
corrective lenses purchased from an optician established in                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
another Member State, on the ground that prior                                              of 28 April 1998
authorisation is required for the purchase of any medical
product abroad.                                                      in Case C-158/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Cour de Cassation): Raymond Kohll v. Union
                                                                                des Caisses de Maladie (1)
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.1995.
                                                                     (Freedom to provide services Ð Reimbursement of
                                                                     medical expenses incurred in another Member State Ð
                                                                     Prior authorisation of the competent institution Ð Public
                                                                                health Ð Dental treatment)
                                                                                (98/C 209/09)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       of 28 April 1998
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-118/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     published in the European Court Reports)
Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Länsrätten i Koppar-
bergs Län): Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas            In Case C-158/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
   Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län (1)             of the EC Treaty from the Luxembourg Cour de Cassation
                                                                     (Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Raymond
Ð Taxation of savings in the form of life assurance Ð
                                                                     Kohll and Union des Caisses de Maladie Ð on the
Legislation of a Member State establishing different tax
                                                                     interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty Ð
regimes according to the place of establishment of the
                                                                     the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
             undertaking providing the services)
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and
                        (98/C 209/08)                                M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
                                                                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
               (Language of the case: Swedish)                       L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
                                                                     D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998, in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude national
                                                                     rules under which reimbursement, in accordance with the
                                                                     scale of the State of insurance, of the cost of dental
In Case C-118/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           treatment provided by an orthodontist established in
of the EC Treaty from Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län,                     another Member State is subject to authorisation by the
formerly Länsrätten i Kopparbergs Län (County                        insured person's social security institution.
Administrative Court, County of Kopparberg), Sweden,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           (1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.
that court between Jessica Safir and Skattemyndigheten i
Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs
Län Ð on the interpretation of Articles 6, 59, 60, 73b
and 73d of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                                      of 28 April 1998
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,               in Case C-200/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               from the Landgericht Köln): Metronome Musik GmbH v.
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998,                           Music Point Hokamp GmbH (1)
in which it has ruled:
                                                                     (Copyright and related rights Ð Rental and lending right
                                                                                Ð Validity of Directive 92/100/EEC)
Article 59 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of                                     (98/C 209/10)
national legislation relating to the taxation of capital life
assurance such as the legislation in question in the main                          (Language of the case: German)
proceedings.
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.                                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-200/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht (Regional Court)


title: Case C-547/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-547/13)
   2013/C 377/16
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings?

               2.

               If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?

               3.

               If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification?

      (1)  OJ L 256, 1, p. 1.


title: Case F-54/09: Action brought on 20 May 2009 — Lebedef v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/28

         Action brought on 20 May 2009 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-54/09)
   2009/C 167/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of several decisions concerning the deduction of 39 days of the applicant’s leave entitlement for 2008.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 12 February 2008, 1 April 2008, 10 April 2008, 20 May 2008 and 14 July 2008 concerning the deduction of 39 days of the applicant’s leave entitlement for 2008;

               —

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


title: Case T-309/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW (G Stor) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark G Stor — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks G-STAR and G-STAR RAW DENIM — Relative ground for refusal — Absence of similarity between the marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW (G Stor)
   (Case T-309/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark G Stor - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks G-STAR and G-STAR RAW DENIM - Relative ground for refusal - Absence of similarity between the marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 63/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: G-Star Raw Denim kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and J. Novais Gonçalves, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ESGW Holdings Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2008 (R 1232/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between G-Star Raw Denim kft and ESGW Holdings Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders G-Star Raw Denim kft to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-62/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission (State aid — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of advantage — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Aid measure put into effect)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission
   (Case T-62/08) (1)

   (State aid - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Aid measure put into effect)
   2010/C 221/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (Terni, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino and G. Barone, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/38

         Removal from the Register of Case T-134/04 R
   (2004/C 273/73)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 10 September 2004, the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-134/04 R, Giuseppe Caló v Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case C-195/11 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-122/09: Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/13

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-122/09: Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-195/11 P)
   2011/C 179/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment;

               —

               order the Applicants to pay the Commission's costs in bringing this Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Point 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment annuls Council regulation (EC) no 1355/2008 (1) insofar as it concerns Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd and Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’), thereby fully annulling the anti-dumping duty imposed, leading to a zero anti-dumping duty on imports by the applicants.
   The Commission submits that the General Court has ruled ultra petita by fully annulling the duty even though the applicants themselves admit that the adjustment that they had been seeking would only have led to a lower anti-dumping duty being imposed on their products.
   Therefore, in the view of the Commission, the operative part of the contested judgment violates article 264, first paragraph, in conjunction with article 254, sixth paragraph, of the TFEU and the principle of proportionality. The annulment of the whole regulation insofar as it concerns the applicants is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment which was accepted by the General Court. It is also ultra petita.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China
   OJ L 350, p. 35


title: Case T-35/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-Dapper against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/35

         Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-Dapper against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-35/05)
   (2005/C 143/68)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-Dapper, Schoorl (Netherlands), and 172 others, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               declare the application, including the plea of illegality contained in it, admissible and well-founded;

               2.

               accordingly, annul the applicants' pension statements for May 2004, which will entail the application of the weighting set according to the capital of their country of residence or, at the very least, of a weighting which correctly reflects the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur expenditure and thus observes the principle of equivalence;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants in this case are all officials who retired before 1 May 2004. They contest the transitional scheme set up pending the abolition of weightings by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) in so far as that scheme is based on a new calculation of the ‘pension’ weightings which are no longer calculated according to the cost of living in the capital, but according to the average cost of living in the Member State where the recipient of the pension provides evidence of having established his main residence.
   In support of their claims the applicants first submit that the regulation cited is based on erroneous grounds in so far as neither the further integration of the Community nor the freedom of movement and residence, nor the difficulty of verifying the actual place of residence of pensioners can serve as a basis for the transitional scheme at issue.
   The applicants also submit that the principles of equality, legal certainty, retroactivity of acquired rights and the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed in this case.

      (1)  OJ L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1.


title: Case T-22/08: Action brought on 14 January 2008 — Quest Diagnostics v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (DIAQUEST)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/29

         Action brought on 14 January 2008 — Quest Diagnostics v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (DIAQUEST)
   (Case T-22/08)
   (2008/C 92/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Quest Diagnostics Inc. (Teterboro, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ALK-Abelló A/S (Hørsholm, Denmark)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 25 October 2007;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM dated 11 October 2006; and

               —

               order the intervener to bear the costs of the action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: ALK-Abelló A/S

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘DIAQUEST’ for goods in classes 1, 5 and 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word marks ‘QUEST DIAGNOSTICS’ for goods and services in classes 5, 10, 16, 35, 39 and 42 — application No 2 402 980 and No 1 958 589

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTRM.


title: Case T-75/07: Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Ahmed Hamdi v Council of the European Union

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/22

         Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Ahmed Hamdi v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-75/07)
   (2007/C 117/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Ahmed Hamdi (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M.J.G. Uiterwaal, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Common Position 2002/402/CSFP (OJ 2002 L 344, p. 93) is, in the case of the applicant, wrongly used as the basis for Regulation 2001/2580/EC (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and so the regulation is not binding on the applicant;

               —

               in any event, that regulation should not be applied as against the applicant;

               —

               in any event, Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123) should be annulled;

               —

               the Councilshould be ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment after the national court found that he had been proved to belong to a terrorist organisation, the Hofstadgroep. The applicant has appealed against that judgment.
   In Decision 2006/1008/EC (1) the Council added the applicant to the list of persons and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) applies.
   In support of his action the applicant submits that both the contested decision and the contested regulation were adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and in particular with an inadequate statement of reasons. In the regulation, the Council has failed to explain why it was necessary in the framework of the common market. In the decision, there is no statement of the reasons why the Council considered that it had to apply Regulation No 2580/2001 to the applicant.
   The applicant also submits that the contested decision lacks the necessary legal basis. Regulation No 2580/2001 conflicts with the EC Treaty in so far as the regulation is applied to the applicant. The contested regulation is not the necessary implementation of obligations flowing from a resolution of the UN Security Council. There is no link between the applicant and third countries or other aspects of the Community foreign and security policy and thus the second pillar is not applicable to the applicant's case.
   Article 308 EC is not a legal basis because there is no link with the implementation of the common market. Moreover, the contested regulation does not give effect to any Union objective and thus the combination of Articles 60, 301 and 308 is not an adequate legal basis.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes his fundamental rights, in particular the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property and his right to undisturbed private life, as follow from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

      (1)  Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).


title: Case T-45/01: Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 134/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
Action brought on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo Vieira y                   In support of its claims, the applicants claim:
Vieira Argentina, S.A. against Commission of the Euro-
                       pean Communities                                  —    Erroneous legal basis, inasmuch as the Commission
                                                                              claims that the legal basis for initiating a proceeding
                                                                              for reduction is Regulation Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case T-44/01)                                       No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down pro-
                                                                              visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
                                                                              as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                              Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                        (2001/C 134/56)                                       ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                              existing financial instruments. (1). On the contrary, the
                                                                              applicants consider that that legal basis is not applicable
                                                                              to joint companies set up under the EC/Argentina Agree-
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                            ment. That error with respect to the legal basis also affects
                                                                              the quantum by which the assistance may be reduced.
                                                                         —    Complete disregard by the Commission for the legal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              scheme applicable to joint fishing companies which it
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              proposed itself pursuant to the Fishing Agreement with
European Communities on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo
                                                                              Argentina, so far as concerns both the erroneous appli-
Vieira y Vieira Argentina, S.A., whose registered office is in
                                                                              cation of the general proceeding and the absence of a
Pontevedra (Spain), represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo
                                                                              decision suspending the financial assistance.
and Mª Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.
                                                                         —    Breach by the defendant of the duties of care and good
                                                                              administration, as well as its obligation to act within a
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   reasonable time.
—      order the Commission to compensate the applicants for             —    Breach of the rights of the defence of one of the
       the damage caused to them by delayed payment of part                   applicants, inasmuch as Vieira Argentina SA was never
       of the aid;                                                            notified by the Commission of its intention to reduce the
                                                                              assistance, much less to suspend it for the duration of the
                                                                              proceedings.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action was brought by two undertakings owners
of fishing vessels to which, in the context of the Fishing
Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Repub-
lic, the Community granted in 1995 a subsidy for the export
to Argentina of a vessel flying a Community flag to a                    Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
joint Community-Argentinian company. In this regard the                  Others against the Commission of the European Com-
applicants claim that, more than 5 years after the joint                                              munities
company was set up, the defendant institution not only has
not paid the remaining balance of the assistance, amounting
to EUR 432 846,28, it even seeks to recover the part of the                                        (Case T-45/01)
amount paid by the beneficiaries.
                                                                                (2001/C 134/57)
The purpose of the present application is precisely to seek
from the Commission compensation for the damage caused to                                  (Language of the case: English)
the applicants by delaying payment of the outstanding balance
of the assistance. Furthermore, the Commission never deemed
it necessary to suspend the assistance, so that it has never             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
notified beneficiaries formally that the assistance had been             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
suspended. The defendant has in fact initiated a proceeding              European Communities on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
seeking to reduce the amount, the outcome being suspension               Others, represented by Ian Hutton, of Monckton Chambers,
of payment of the balance of the assistance.                             London (U.K.).
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 November
      2000;                                                              —     annul the decision of the Commission, notified by letter
                                                                               of 8 December 2000 AGR No 030905, which arrived on
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for                    21 December 2000, signed by Director-General for
      the loss of earnings, pension, benefits and privileges                   Agriculture J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez, pursuant to Articles 230
      occasioned to them by breaches of Community law;                         and 231 of the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the EC Treaty;
The action is brought against a decision of the Join European
Torus (JET) Appointing Authority declining a request for                 —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensation made by the applicants for losses resulting from
the Commission’s method of engaging them to work on the
JET project without recruiting them to temporary Commission
posts.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that, in so doing, the Commission:
—     was in breach of the fundamental principle of non-
      discrimination in that in several respects the applicants          The applicant companies have for many years marketed third-
      were materially disadvantaged, to a significant extent,            country bananas. In 2000, like 1999, they were allocated a
      compared to those in temporary Commission posts; and               reference quantity established by reference to the average
                                                                         quantity of bananas imported from third countries in the
                                                                         three-year period 1994/1995/1996, and so they regularly
—     was in breach of, or alternatively ultra vires, the Statutes
                                                                         submitted, during 2000, applications for quarterly licences to
      governing the JET Project, prior to the amendment of the
                                                                         import bananas from third countries. For the fourth quarter of
      Statutes which took effect on 21 October 1998; in so
                                                                         2000, the applicants submitted applications for import licences
      far as the said amendment purported to preclude the
                                                                         in respect of the quantities left over from the yearly quantity
      Commission from recruiting the applicants to temporary
                                                                         allocated to them, indicating as origins for the product they
      posts, the amendment was to the extent unlawful and
                                                                         sought to import one or more third countries.
      invalid.
                                                                         Under Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98
                                                                         of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                         implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                         regarding imports of bananas into the Community (1), the
                                                                         applicants could have submitted applications for licences for
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                       the fourth quarter of 2000, but only in respect of the
and Others against the Commission of the European                        traditional ACP countries, for which there were still
                          Communities                                    329 787,675 tonnes, the other sources having by now been
                                                                         completely exhausted. Since in 1999 they had requested and
                                                                         obtained import licences for ACP countries up to their
                         (Case T-46/01)                                  reference quantity, but had not been able to use them because
                                                                         it had been impossible to find bananas from those origins in
                        (2001/C 134/58)                                  2000, they renounced their use of the licence in order not to
                                                                         risk losing the security lodged, as had happened the previous
                                                                         year.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicants therefore requested the Commission to issue
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               them import licences in respect of third-country bananas for a
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                 reduced amount, even if the quota was exhausted, or to
and others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and Gabrie-             compensate them for the losses suffered as a result of their not
le Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                being able to use up the whole of their respective reference
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, rue Mathias                 quantities. The defendant’s refusal in this regard is at the heart
Hardt.                                                                   of the present proceedings.


title: Removal from the register of C-25/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case T-438/15: Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Port Autonome du Centre et de l'Ouest and Others v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/30

         Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Port Autonome du Centre et de l'Ouest and Others v Commission
   (Case T-438/15)
   (2015/C 337/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Port Autonome du Centre et de l'Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port Autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port Autonome de Charleroi (Charleroi, Belgium) and Région wallonne (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible on the part of each of the applicants and consequently annul the Commission decision reference SA.38393(2014/CP) — taxation of ports in Belgium;

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               consequently, annul the decision of the Commission to regard as State aid incompatible with the internal market the fact that the economic activities of Belgian ports, and in particular Walloon ports, are not subjected to corporate tax;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging, generally, that the Commission’s assertions are neither supported by the facts nor justified in law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the assertion that the taxation system at issue constitutes corporation tax is not justified in law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission neglected to take into account Member States’ prerogatives over:

                           —

                           the definition of non-economic activities;

                           —

                           the definition of direct taxation;

                           —

                           the obligation to ensure the proper functioning of services of general interest necessary for social and economic cohesion;

                           —

                           the discretionary organisation of services in the public interest.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the essential activities of the Walloon ports are services of public interest that are not governed, in accordance with European legislation (Articles 93 and 106(2) TFEU), by the competition rules laid down by Article 107 TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that if the essential activities of the inland Walloon ports fall within the scope of services of general economic interest, they are governed by the rules of Articles 93 and 106(2) TFEU and that the competition rules are not applicable to them.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, put forward in the further alternative, alleging that the European criteria for the definition of State aid are not met.