title: Case C-496/03: Action brought on 24 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
24.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 November                        Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 November
2003 in the case of Senior Engineering Investments B.V.                     2003 in the case of Intermodal Transports B.V. against
              against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                                         Staatssecretaris van Financiën
                                                                                (Case C-495/03)
                          (Case C-494/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/42)
                           (2004/C 21/41)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
                                                                            der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                           24 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of                       of Intermodal Transports B.V. against Staatssecretaris van
21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on                         Financiën on the following questions:
24 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Senior Engineering Investments B.V. against Staatssecretaris                1.    Should a national court refer questions on the interpret-
van Financiën on the following questions:                                         ation of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (1) to the
                                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities for a
                                                                                preliminary ruling in the case where a party to a dispute
1.     Does Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1)                   brought before it concerning classification in the CN of a
       of 17 July 1969, as amended by Council Directive 85/                       certain product invokes a decision by a customs authority
       303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985, permit capital duty to be                     laid down in binding tariff information issued to a third
       levied on a company in respect of a direct informal                        party in respect of a similar product and the national
       capital contribution made by the parent of that company                    court takes the view that that binding tariff information
       to a subsidiary of that company and, if so, what                           is at variance with the CN?
       circumstances are of relevance in that respect; in particu-
       lar is it relevant whether or not that company must be
       regarded, from an economic point of view, as the real                2.    Must heading 8709 of the CN be interpreted as covering
       recipient of that direct informal capital contribution?                    vehicles such as those in issue in the present case?
2.     Does the freedom of establishment laid down in                       (1) CN: Position under the Combined Nomenclature as referred to in
       Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
       Article 43 EC), in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC                 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
       Treaty (now Article 48 EC), prohibit the tax authorities                 Common Customs Tariff, OJ 1987 L 256.
       of a Member State from pursing a policy which levies no
       capital duty on a company in respect of a direct informal
       capital contribution made by the parent of that company
       to a subsidiary of that company, provided that that
       subsidiary is established in that Member State, and is it
       relevant in this respect — on the assumption that the
       directive permits capital duty to be levied both on that
       company and its subsidiary in a case such as the present             Action brought on 24 November 2003 by the Com-
       — whether or not more capital duty has been levied at                mission of the European Communities against the French
       group level than would have been the case had both that                                           Republic
       company and its subsidiary been established in the
       Netherlands?
                                                                                (Case C-496/03)
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning                                           (2004/C 21/43)
    indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969,
    p. 25).
(2) Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Direc-
    tive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
    (OJ L 156 of 15.6.1985, p. 23).                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Novem-
                                                                            ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by C.-F. Durand and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/24                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and the laws, regulations
                                                                           The prohibition on the sale of food supplements by mail order,
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           laid down in Paragraph 50(2) of the Gewerbeordnung, is a
      Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001
                                                                           measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction
      adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council
                                                                           on imports. It constitutes a greater obstacle to the sale of
      Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                           products from other Member States than to that of domestic
      regulations and administrative provisions relating to
                                                                           products. Such a prohibition on sales by mail order makes it
      the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
                                                                           necessary for traders from other Member States to establish a
      substances (1) and, in any event, by not communicating
                                                                           place of business in Austria or attract sales partners there
      them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed
                                                                           whereas Austrian traders in any case already have a fixed place
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
                                                                           of business in Austria, which can be advantageous to them in
                                                                           marketing the food supplements manufactured by them.
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          Austrian traders have the advantage of being able to use areas
                                                                           of the manufacturing premises or the premises on which their
                                                                           place of business is situated as a sales outlet also. This
                                                                           may represent a considerable cost advantage over foreign
                                                                           manufacturers as a result of the expenditure saved.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on               The aims of the protection of consumers against health risks
30 July 2002.                                                              and misrepresentation, which are put forward in order to
                                                                           justify such a prohibition, may be achieved by more lenient
                                                                           means which restrict the free movement of goods to a lesser
(1) OJ L 225 of 21 August 2001, p. 1.                                      degree. The Austrian measure is thus a disproportionate
                                                                           restriction on the free movement of goods.
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
                             lic of Austria
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                           Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by order of that court
                           (Case C-497/03)                                 dated 10 June 2003, in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates
                                                                           Ltd, 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest
                                                                           Residential Care Homes) against Commissioners of Cus-
                            (2004/C 21/44)                                                         toms and Excise
                                                                                (Case C-498/03)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
24 November 2003 by the Commission of the European                                                  (2004/C 21/45)
Communities, represented by J. C. Schieferer and B. Schima,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the VAT and Duties
1.    hold that, by imposing in Paragraph 50(2) of the Gewer-              Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 10 June 2003, which
      beordnung a prohibition on the sale of food supplements              was received at the Court Registry on 26 November 2003, for
      by mail order, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil          a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates Ltd,
      its obligations under Article 28 EC;                                 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest Residential
                                                                           Care Homes) and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                      the following questions:


title: Case F-16/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 October 2012 — Verstreken v Council

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 October 2012 — Verstreken v Council
   (Case F-16/10) (1)

   2012/C 379/64
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 55.


title: Case F-83/07: Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Zangerl-Posselt v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/32

         Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Zangerl-Posselt v Commission
   (Case F-83/07)
   (2007/C 235/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt (Saarbrücken, Germany) (represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AST/27/06 (Assistants (AST 1) having as their main language German) not to admit the applicant to the practical and oral tests for that competition, communicated to the applicant by a letter from EPSO of 18 June 2007 and confirmed by letter of 25 July 2007;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The selection board for competition EPSO/AST/27/06 (Assistants (AST 1) having as their main language German) did not admit the applicant to the practical and oral tests, since she did not have the required level of education (Abitur).
   The applicant claims, in particular, that her level of education (Realschulabschluss) meets the requirements of Section A.II.1(ii) of the competition notice. The classification of diplomas is based, both in Germany and at European level, on the International Standard Classification of Education of 1997 (ISCED), drawn up by UNESCO, the terminology of which was also reproduced in the competition notice. According to that classification, the Realschulabschluss is a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education (ISCED level 2) and gives access to post-secondary education (ISCED level 4).
   In addition, the applicant pleads that the defendant's decision is insufficiently and incorrectly reasoned.


title: Case T-366/00 RENV: Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Scott v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Scott v Commission
   (Case T-366/00 RENV) (1)

   2013/C 32/41
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.


title: Case F-108/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 January 2016 — Vermoesen and Herkens v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 January 2016 — Vermoesen and Herkens v Commission
   (Case F-108/15) (1)

   (2016/C 068/61)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 54.


title: Case T-362/11: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/26

         Order of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-362/11) (1)

   2012/C 80/47
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1997 in the case of Salomone Haim against Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (Case C-424/97)

text:
7.2.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                   individual decision, can the public law body be held
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1997 in                 liable as well as the Member State?
the case of Salomone Haim against Kassenzahnärztliche
                    Vereinigung Nordrhein                           2. If so: Where a national official has either applied
                                                                        conflicting national law against Community law, or
                       (Case C-424/97)
                                                                        has applied national law in a manner that does not
                         (98/C 41/33)                                   comply with Community law, is there a serious breach
                                                                        of Community law simply on the ground that the
                                                                        official had no discretion in making his decision?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              3. Where a national of another Member State has been
European Communities by order of the Landgericht                        recognised in the host Member State as having the
(Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 8 December 1997,                         status of a dental practitioner but does not hold a
received at the Court Registry on 15 December 1997, for                 diploma mentioned in Article 3 of Directive 78/686/
a preliminary ruling in the case of Salomone Haim v.                    EEC (1), may the competent authorities of the host
Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein on the                        Member State make the admission of such person to
following questions:                                                    treat patients affiliated to social security schemes
                                                                        conditional upon his having the knowledge of
                                                                        languages which he needs for the exercise of his
1. If an official of a legally independent public law body              professional activity in the host State?
     of a Member State breaches primary Community law
     when applying national law in the context of an                (1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                    of 16 December 1997
in Case T-19/97: Claude Richter v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Leave on personal grounds Ð Reinstatement
Ð Place of employment Ð Duty to have regard to the
 welfare of officials Ð Principle of sound administration)
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         (98/C 41/34)
                                                                                of 17 December 1997
                (Language of the case: French)                      in Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
                                                                     Association (EFMA) v. Council of the European Union (1)
In Case T-19/97: Claude Richter, an official of the                  (Anti-dumping duties Ð Injury Ð Right to a fair hearing)
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                                (98/C 41/35)
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð
application for compensation for the harm which the
applicant considered to have suffered as a result of the            In Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
fact that the Commission did not reinstate him, at the end          Association (EFMA), established in Zurich (Switzerland),
of his leave on personal grounds, to the first vacant post          represented initially by Dominique Voillemot and Hubert
in his category and grade, in respect of which he was in            de Broca and subsequently by Dominique Voillemot and
possession of the requisite abilities Ð the Court of First          Olivier Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11
C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave       Rue Goethe v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
a judgment on 16 December 1997, the operative part of               Yves CreÂtien, Antonio Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen
which is as follows:                                                Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) Ð
                                                                    application for annulment of Article 1 of Council
1. The application is dismissed.                                    Regulation (EC) No 477/95 of 16 January 1995 amending


title: Case C-466/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben v Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben v Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique
   (Case C-466/15)
   (2015/C 381/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique

      Question referred

   Is national legislation which permits an official on secondment to an institution of the European Union to choose, for the duration of his secondment, either to suspend his payment of contributions to the pension scheme in his State of origin, in which case his pension under that scheme is fully aggregated with the retirement benefits connected with the secondment, or to continue with the payments, in which case his pension under that scheme is limited to the amount required in order to bring the total amount of the pensions, including the pension acquired under the scheme applicable to the position to which he is seconded, to the amount of the pension he would have acquired if he had not been seconded contrary to the obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in the light of Article 48 TFEU, and to the principle of sincere cooperation referred to in Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union?


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/41

         Removal from the Register of Case T-159/04 (1)

   (2005/C 115/75)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 19 January 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-159/04, Davide Rovetta v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.


title: Case T-144/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Numbi v Council

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/33

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Numbi v Council
   (Case T-144/17)
   (2017/C 129/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230, implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016, imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr John Numbi;

               —

               order the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, those of the applicant and all the interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.


title: Case C-248/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 — Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 — Animal by-products — Waste — Burial without prior treatment — Lack of official controls — Plants for the safe management of animal by-products — Operation — Lack of authorisation — Incineration of specified risk materials — No adequate process)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-248/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 - Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 - Animal by-products - Waste - Burial without prior treatment - Lack of official controls - Plants for the safe management of animal by-products - Operation - Lack of authorisation - Incineration of specified risk materials - No adequate process)
   2010/C 51/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Markoulli, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, S. Charitaki, E.-M. Mamouna and Chalkias, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 4(2), 5(2), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1) — Burial of animal bi-products without prior treatment — Lack of official controls

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               By not correctly applying and imposing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, in so far as it regards burial in landfills without prior treatment, lack of official controls, authorisation of plants for the management of animal by-products and incineration of specified risk materials, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation No 1774/2002;

               2.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209 of 15.08.2008


title: Case T-256/10 P: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Removal of personal effects — Implied and express rejection of the appellant’s requests — Duty to state reasons — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/17

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-256/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Removal of personal effects - Implied and express rejection of the appellant’s requests - Duty to state reasons - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 238/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2010 in Case F-102/08 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission at the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case F-97/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2015 — BU v EMA

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2015 — BU v EMA
   (Case F-97/14) (1)

   (2015/C 146/75)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 50.


title: Case T-468/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/50

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission
   (Case T-468/14)
   2014/C 292/61
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the eDIGIREGION project, order the applicant to be indemnified for the losses suffered, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 3 0 55  000, or in the alternative the amount determined by the judicial expert, together with the interest accruing in accordance with the expert’s report, and expressly order that this be paid by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action has been brought against the decision to refuse to allow the applicant — an undertaking engaged principally in telecommunications, R&D and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation — to participate in the European eDIGIREGION project under the Seventh Framework Programme.
   In this regard, the applicant states that it has participated in developing the proposal for the eDIGIREGION project since its creation, in close connection with other entities and held a number of meetings in Brussels and several audio conferences between July 2011 and January 2012, resulting in the formation of a European Consortium which submitted a proposal for an eDIGIREGION project (Realizing the Digital Agenda through Transnational Cooperation between Regions). The applicant is partner number 5 of the Consortium with a budget of EUR 4 91  400.00 and a contribution from the Commission of EUR 4 38  165 ,00. (14,61 % of the total requested).
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that the arguments put forward by the European Commission are totally unjustified, as they infringe the main requirement necessary if the latter is to be able to decide to suspend the participation of an undertaking in a project which has been positively appraised; the arguments must be clear, unequivocal and properly substantiated.
   Specifically, the applicant states that it is technically and operationally prepared to participate in the eDIGIREGION Consortium, it has sufficient financial capacity to take on its share of the co-financing, and it has sufficient experience in the management and administration of projects.
   In this respect, the applicant considers that there is a manifest inconsistency between what the Director General signed in the text of the letter giving notice of the suspension of the participation in the project and the arguments set out in the Annex to that letter.


title: Case F-82/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 — Thierry v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Non-inclusion in the list of officials promoted — 2004 promotion procedure — Priority points — Merit — Length of service — Admissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 — Thierry v Commission
   (Case F-82/05) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Non-inclusion in the list of officials promoted - 2004 promotion procedure - Priority points - Merit - Length of service - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 96/85)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel Thierry (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 under the 2004 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicant's name.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 27 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-327/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Case C-290/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Receveur principal des douanes de Villepinte v Derudder & Cie SA

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   4 March 2004
   In Case C-290/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Receveur principal des douanes de Villepinte v Derudder & Cie SA (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Release for free circulation - Taking of a sample - Possibility of challenging the representativeness of that sample)
   (2004/C 94/04)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-290/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Receveur principal des douanes de Villepinte and Derudder & Cie SA; third party: Tang Frères, on the interpretation of Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Council Directive 79/695/EEC of 24 July 1979 on the harmonisation of procedures for the release of goods for free circulation and Commission Directive 82/57/EEC of 17 December 1981 laying down certain provisions for implementing Directive 79/695, as amended by Commission Directive 83/371/EEC of 14 July 1983, together with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible for a customs declarant or his representative present when a sample was taken by the customs authorities of imported goods and who did not at the time challenge the representativeness of that sample to challenge its representativeness when requested by those authorities to pay additional import duties following their analysis of that sample, provided that the goods concerned have not been released or, if they have been released, that they have not been altered in any way whatsoever, which is for that declarant to prove.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


title: Case T-284/09 P: Order of the General Court of 21 June 2010 — Meister v OHIM (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Staff report — Late drawing up of assessment reports — Subject-matter of the action at first instance — Late reply to complaints — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/45

         Order of the General Court of 21 June 2010 — Meister v OHIM
   (Case T-284/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Staff report - Late drawing up of assessment reports - Subject-matter of the action at first instance - Late reply to complaints - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 221/74
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: H.-J Zimmermann, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Faedo, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and E. Winter, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM [2009], not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Herbert Meister shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in connection with these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case C-92/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen, interested party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Volker und Markus Schecke GbR v Land Hessen, interested party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-92/09)
   2009/C 129/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volker und Markus Schecke GbR

      Defendant: Land Hessen

      Interested party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are point 8b of Article 42(1) and Article 44a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 of 26 November 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2007 L 322, p. 1), invalid?

               2.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 28)

                           (a)

                           invalid, or

                           (b)

                           valid by reason only of the fact that Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) is invalid?

         If the provisions mentioned in the first and second questions are valid:

               3.

               Must the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as meaning that publication in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) may be effected only following implementation of the procedure — in lieu of notification to a supervisory authority — established by that article?

               4.

               Must Article 20 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as meaning that publication in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) may be effected only following exercise of the prior check required by national law in that case?

               5.

               If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 20 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as meaning that no effective prior check has been performed, if it was effected on the basis of a register established in accordance with the second indent of Article 18(2) of that directive which lacks an item of information prescribed?

               6.

               Must Article 7 — and in this case, in particular, subparagraph (e) — of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as precluding a practice of storing the IP addresses of the users of a homepage without their express consent?


title: Case T-105/13: Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Ludwig Schokolade v OHIM — Immergut (TrinkFix)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/36

         Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Ludwig Schokolade v OHIM — Immergut (TrinkFix)
   (Case T-105/13)
   2013/C 108/86
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: S. Fischer and A. Brodkorb, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG (Elsdorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2012 in Case R 34/2012-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings before it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TrinkFix’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9 045 634

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word mark ‘Drinkfit’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1999 in Case C-179/95: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries - Regulation laying down limits on and distributing fishing opportunities among Member States - Fishing quota exchanges - Annulment)

text:
18.12.1999                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 366/13
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         an increase in share capital or a change in a company’s name or
                                                                                registered office, such as the charge at issue in the main
                                                                                proceedings, the amount of which increases in direct proportion
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                      to the share capital raised and in respect of which there is no
                                                                                upper limit.
                        of 29 September 1999
                                                                            4. Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
                                                                                85/303, creates rights on which individuals may rely in
in Case C-56/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         proceedings before the national courts.
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Modelo SGPS SA
        v Director-Geral dos Registos e Notariado (1)
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.1998.
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
capital — Charge for drawing up a notarially attested act
recording an increase in share capital and a change in a
              company’s name and registered office)
                             (1999/C 366/20)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                of 5 October 1999
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Case C-179/95: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                 European Union (1)
In Case C-56/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Fisheries — Regulation laying down limits on and distribut-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal                ing fishing opportunities among Member States — Fishing
Administrativo, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the                                    quota exchanges — Annulment)
proceedings pending before that court between Modelo SGPS
SA and Director-Geral dos Registos e Notariado, in the
                                                                                (1999/C 366/21)
presence of the Ministério Público — on the interpretation of
Articles 4(3), 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412), as
amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
(OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
sed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which it has ruled:                     In Case C-179/95: Kingdom of Spain (Agents: A. Navarro
                                                                            González and R. Silva de Lapuerta) v Council of the European
1. Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning                  Union (Agents: J. Carbery and G.L. Ramos Ruano), supported
    indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council         by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van
    Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as            Rijn and B. Vilá Costa) — application for annulment of the
    meaning that charges constitute taxes for the purposes of the           final sentence of point 1.1(i) of Annex IV to Council Regulation
    directive where they are collected for drawing up notarially            (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the
    attested acts recording a transaction covered by the directive,         fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and
    under a system where notaries are employed by the State and the         resources (OJ 1995 L 71, p. 5) and of the fifth heading, on
    charges in question are paid in part to that State for the financing    anchovies, in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 746/95
    of its official business.                                               of 31 March 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 3362/94
                                                                            fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the
                                                                            total allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions under
2. A charge payable for drawing up a notarially attested act                which they may be fished (OJ 1995 L 74, p. 1) — the Court
    recording an increase in share capital or a change in a company’s       (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the
    name or registered office is, where it amounts to a tax for the         Second Chamber, acting as President of the Second Chamber
    purposes of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303,           (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; S. Alber,
    in principle prohibited under Article 10(c) thereof.                    Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October
3. ‘Fees or dues’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(e) of Directive       1999, in which it:
    69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, do not cover a
    charge collected for drawing up a notarially attested act recording     1. Dismisses the action;
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/14               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.12.1999
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                          would not raise any objections to the financial allocation
                                                                          of the restructuring on grounds of State aids law. In any
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay its           event, there can be no question of demanding back the
     own costs.                                                           subsidies already paid before the end of 1995, since before
                                                                          the opening of the State aid proceedings in August 1997
                                                                          the Commission had allowed more than three years to
(1) OJ No C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                             elapse in which it did not claim that the information before
                                                                          it was insufficient. In respect of the notified intentions to
                                                                          pay subsidies also, the Commission did not at any time
                                                                          before August 1997 invoke the suspensive effect of
                                                                          Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (old version) or of
                                                                          Article 6.4.4 of the Fifth Steel Aids Code or Article 6.4.1
                                                                          of the Sixth Steel Aids Code.
Action brought on 9 September 1999 by the Federal
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                              — Infringement of the duty to state reasons
                          (Case C-334/99)
                                                                       — Erroneous application of the ECSC Treaty to the competi-
                                                                          tive assessment of non-ECSC production: The Commission
                          (1999/C 366/22)                                 bases its decision on assumptions of the danger of a
                                                                          spillover effect, and not on factual determination of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 disproportionate application of resources in the ECSC area;
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              it gives insufficient weight to an accountant’s report
Communities on 9 September 1999 by the Federal Republic                   proving the contrary.
of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski of the
Federal Ministry of Finance, Bonn, and Joachim Sedemund,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service at the               — Erroneous assessment of the investment subsidies under
office of Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Federal Ministry of Finance,              the Fifth Steel Aids Code: The Commission behaves
Graurheindorfer Strasse 108, D-53117 Bonn.                                inconsistently when it argues that the subsidies concerned
                                                                          were not notified on time, whereas it itself called upon the
The Federal Republic of Germany claims that the Court should:             Federal Government to withdraw notification that was
                                                                          made on time. In any event, the mere formal infringement
1. Annul Articles 4 to 7 of the Commission’s decision                     of a duty to notify does not justify final demand for
     K(1999) 2264 endg. of 8 July 1999 concerning ‘State aid              repayment where the substantive permissibility of the aid
     granted by Germany to Gröditzer Stahlwerke GmbH and                  has not been examined.
     its subsidiary Walzwerk Burg GmbH’;
2. Order the Commission, pursuant to Article 23 of the ECSC            — Erroneous assessment of the investment subsidies for the
     Statute of the Court of Justice, to transmit all files since         non-ECSC area: The Commission having itself acknowl-
     1994 concerning this aids proceeding to the Court of                 edged in the decision that in respect of the investment
     Justice and allow the applicant to inspect those files;              subsidies a clear distinction was to be made between the
                                                                          application of the EC and the ECSC Treaties, its reference
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 to the approval criteria of the ECSC Treaty and the Fifth
                                                                          Steel Aids Code is unlawful. Moreover, the EC activities of
                                                                          Gröditzer Stahlwerke do not constitute a ‘sensitive sector’
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           within the meaning of the Treuhand regulation cited by
                                                                          the Commission or the restructuring guidelines of the
— Irregular composition of the Commission: At the time of                 Commission. The ‘Framework for certain steel sectors not
     the decision, a Member of the Commission was ‘on                     covered by the ECSC Treaty’ (1) cited by the Commission
     holiday’, for which no provision is made in the Treaty, and          in its reasoning contains no material criteria for examining
     the transfer of his area of responsibility to another                aids in favour of the steel production areas described in
     Commissioner had the result that he could no longer                  that regulation and individually distinguished from each
     exercise his office; the number of the Commissioners with            other.
     the authority to make a decision was thus effectively
     reduced to nineteen.
                                                                          In carrying out the required assessment exclusively in
— Infringement of the duty to act within a reasonable time,               accordance with Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty, the Com-
     and of the principles of sound administrative practice and           mission should in the exercise of its discretion have applied
     legal certainty: Although the Commission was informed                to this case the approval criteria which it applied in
     by notifications in 1994 and 1995 of financial measures              numerous other cases of restructuring measures, and
     already carried out and planned for the future, it fed the           in particular several comparable cases concerning the
     legitimate expectation of the Federal Government and the             Treuhand, but also in the cases of Société Marseillaise de
     undertakings concerned over a period of three years that it          Crédit (2) or Olympic Airways (3).


title: Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Jean-Claude Baiwir against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-174/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/25
The selection criteria laid down in Regulation (EEC )                        Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Jean-Claude Baiwir
No 866/90, by means of Decision 90/342/EEC ( 2), exclude                        against the Commission of the European Communities
EAGGF financing except for investments carried out 'in                                                 ( Case T-l 74/97)
units of small size '. The contested decision excluded the
grant of aid on the ground that the applicant undertaking                                                ( 97/C 228/59 )
did not fall into that category since its annual production
level exceeded 20 000 tonnes .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
First of all, the applicant alleges infringement of                          An action against the Commission of the European
Article 8 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 and breach                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
of the principle of legal certainty. In its opinion,                         Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 1997 by
when restricting financing for projects submitted by                         Jean-Claude Baiwir, resident in Court St Etienne, Belgium,
undertakings which were 'units of small size', the                           represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Commission failed to specify what was to be understood                       address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
by that term. It was, on the contrary, legitimate to                         Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
consider, as did both the applicant and the national
authority, that undertakings should be classified as being
'of small size' on the basis of the usual criteria relating to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the number of employees and turnover. If the defendant
wishes to adopt criteria for the classification of small
undertakings other than the usual ones, by concentrating                     — annul the Commission decision of 31 July 1996
on the volume of production, it ought to have followed                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
the procedure provided for in Article 29 of Regulation                            consideration to the possible application of
( EEC ) No 4253/88 (3 ), as required by Article 8 ( 3 ) of                        Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 . Moreover, those criteria
ought to have been brought in advance to the attention
                                                                             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
not only of the Member States but also of interested
parties, by means of publication in the Official Journal of
the European Communities. On this point, the applicant                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
refers to paragraph 37 et seq. of the judgment of the
Court of First Instance in Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo v.
Commission (4 ) [ 1995] ECR 11-1482 concerning a similar                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
dispute.                                                                     relied on in Case T-l 6/97 I 1 ).
                                                                             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Second, the applicant points out the contradictions in the
reasons stated for the contested decision. Thus, on the one
hand, the Commission asserts that the applicant's project
was rejected because it was submitted by an undertaking
whose production exceeded 20 000 tonnes. On the other
hand, the same communication states that an undertaking
with a production volume within that limit cannot be                         Action brought on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands
accepted because 'with regard to dried medicinal herbs, in                        Antilles against the Council of the European Union
view of existing overcapacity and the difficulties on the                                              ( Case T-l 79/97)
market, it will not be possible to finance any project in the
dried-fodder sector'.                                                                                ( 97/C 228/60 )
f 1 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 of 20 March 1990 on                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
      improving the processing and marketing conditions for
      agricultural products ( OJ No L 91 , 6 . 4 . 1990 , p. 1 ).
(2 ) Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
      selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and           Communities on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands
      forestry products ( OJ No L 163 , 29 . 6 . 1990 , p. 71 ).             Antilles, represented by R V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,
( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                             of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
      different Structural Funds between themselves and with the             Rue Goethe .
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments ( OJ No L 374, 31 . 12 . 1988 ,
      p. 1 .                                                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
(4 ) Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-1482 .
                                                                             — annul Council Regulation No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997
                                                                                introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports


title: Case T-53/10: Action brought on 5 February 2010 — Riesenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/56

         Action brought on 5 February 2010 — Riesenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)
   (Case T-53/10)
   2010/C 100/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Riesenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. Aliki Busse, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 November 2009 and 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3);

               —

               in the alternative, order restitutio in integrum in relation to the applicant;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 2 179 550 001 for ‘Hampers, crates and baskets’

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Peter Riesenthel

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the right to be heard and incorrect exercise of discretion by the Board of Appeal


title: Case F-37/12: Action brought on 16 March 2012 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/24

         Action brought on 16 March 2012 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-37/12)
   2012/C 184/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, an application for annulment of the letter by which the President of the EIB rejected, following the report by the ‘Dignity at work’ committee, the applicant’s complaint alleging mobbing. Second, an application for annulment of the opinion of the abovementioned committee, in so far as it failed to find that the applicant was a victim of mobbing.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the letter of 20 December 2011 in so far as the President of the EIB, in addition to not adopting any provision on the mobbing to which the applicant has been subjected for 20 years, claimed that he could threaten the applicant in order to force him to accept submissively all his acts of bullying and the acts of oppression to which he is subjected on a daily basis, starting with the abandonment of a third of the appeals brought before the Committee of Inquiry;

               —

               Annul the report and the conclusions adopted on 26 October 2011 by the Committee of Inquiry, in far as they:

                           —

                           provided an inadequate definition of mobbing and failed to address the applicant’s complaint, so that the measures adopted by the EIB are wholly inadequate;

                           —

                           dismissed the appeal, without referring to the applicable rules;

                           —

                           failed to provide any evidence of the investigations purportedly carried out and failed to refer to either the facts complained of by the applicant or the grounds of justification provided by the EIB;

               —

               Annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including in particular those used by the Committee for mobbing, which were requested to no avail on 21 December 2011 and refused on 6 January 2012;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-342/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/28

         Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-342/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/46
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by I. Koskinen and R. Lyal)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Finland taxes foreign pension funds on the dividends received by them more heavily than Finnish pension funds. Finnish pension funds are taxed under a special tax scheme (Elinkeinoverolaki) and their tax rate is determined differently from that of other corporations. Under Paragraph 6a of the Elinkeinoverolaki, only 75 % of their dividend income is taxable income, and since the corporation tax rate is 26 % their real tax rate is 19,5 %. Finnish pension institutions can also deduct, under Paragraph 7 and point 10 of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 8 of the Elinkeinoverolaki, expenses and losses deriving from the acquisition or preservation of income, and also pension liabilities. Dividends received by comparable foreign pension funds are charged withholding tax at a tax rate of as much as 28 %. As regards pension funds established in the Member States and most pension funds from EFTA countries belonging to the EEA, the dividends are taxed in accordance with a tax rate of 19,5 %, but foreign pension funds are not entitled to make the corresponding deductions.
   The tax rate applicable to dividends paid to recipients abroad under the Finnish tax scheme, together with the broader basis of assessment applicable to them, acts to the disadvantage of foreign pension funds offering their services to Finnish customers by placing them in an unfavourable competitive situation. The discriminatory treatment of foreign pension funds makes it less profitable and attractive for those funds to invest in Finnish companies and affects the opportunities of Finnish companies to acquire capital finance from foreign pension funds. There is therefore a prohibited restriction for the purposes of Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement. The discriminatory treatment of foreign pension funds cannot be justified on any of the grounds put forward by the Republic of Finland.


title: Case T-298/04: Action brought on 5 October 2004 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/48

         Action brought on 5 October 2004 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-298/04)
   (2004/C 300/94)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 October 2004 by Guido Strack, residing in Wasserliesch (Germany), represented by J. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the promotion procedure for the year 2003 carried out in his regard pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, the award of points made in that procedure, and the subsequent decision not to promote the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is brought against the manner in which the promotion procedure for 2003 was conducted, the non-award of priority points to the applicant, and the decision of the Appointing Authority under the 2003 promotion procedure not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade A 5.
   The Applicant claims breach of the following provisions and general legal principles:

               —

               Article 26 of the Staff Regulations

               —

               Article 25 of the Staff Regulations

               —

               Article 24, sentences 4 and 5 of the Staff Regulations

               —

               Article 110 in conjunction with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations

               —

               Article 43 of the Staff Regulations

               —

               Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and the equality principle

               —

               the obligation on the Appointing Authority to pay due regard to the welfare of officials

               —

               the provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations

               —

               Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to a fair administrative procedure, the welfare principle and the duty to provide a fair hearing

               —

               the duty to state reasons and not to act in an arbitrary manner

               —

               the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the rule ‘Apatere legem quam ipse fecisti’


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 1995 in Case C-345/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública, Ministério Público v. Américo João Nunes Tadeu

text:
22. 4. 95          | EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 101 /1
                                                                I
                                                         (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2, orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                      of 7 March 1995
in Case C-130/91 REV: ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio           (!) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Interdata                 OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
( Centro de Processamento de Dados Limidada) v.
       Commission of the European Communities ( a )
   (Application for revision — Manifest inadmissibility)
                        ( 95/C 101/01 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 March 1995
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       in Case C-345/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
        published in the European Court Reports)                   the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública,
                                                                      Ministério Público v. Américo João Nunes Tadeu ( J )
In Case C-130/91 REV: ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio                                     ( 95/C 101/02 )
ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional ), a company
incorporated under Portuguese law and established in                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Lisbon, and Interdata ( Centro de Processamento de Dados
Limidada ), a company incorporated under Portuguese law
and established in Lisbon ( avocat: Agostinho Amado                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Rodrigues ) v. Commission of the European Communities                      published in the European Court Reports)
(Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for revision
of the order of the Court of Justice of 14 January 1992 in         In Case C-345/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Case C-130/91 ISAE/VP and Interdata v. Commission
                                                                   of the EEC Treaty from the Tax Section of the Supremo
[ 1992] ECR 1-69 , — the Court, composed of: G. C.                 Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court),
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.        Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann (Presidents of                     pending before that court between Fazenda Publica,
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho          Ministério Público and Américo Joâo Nunes Tadeu — on
de Almeida, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward,            the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P.           — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a          de Almeida, Judge, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
judgment in which it:                                              D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                   F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 1995 , in
1 , dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;        which it rules :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 101/2             PEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 4 . 95
1 , a motor vehicle tax applied without distinction to                        (a ) what if any temporal limitation is to be placed upon
      vehicles assembled or manufactured in the Member                              such invalidity and/or upon its effects ?
      State where it is levied and to both new and used
      imported vehicles is not a customs duty or a charge                     ( b) In the circumstances of this case, is a national
      having an effect equivalent thereto within the meaning                        competent authority prohibited by Community law
      of Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty;                                        from enforcing a provision of domestic legislation
                                                                                requiring health inspections at slaughterhouses to
                                                                                be carried out by or under the supervision of
2, it is incompatible with Article 95 of the EC Treaty for a                        veterinary surgeons when that provision purports
      Member State to levy on second-hand cars from other                           to implement Directive 64/433/EEC as amended
      Member States a tax which, calculated without taking                          but which also has or purports to have another,
      the vehicle's actual depreciation into account, exceeds                       independent legal basis in national law ?
      the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar
      second-hand motor vehicles already registered in the
      national territory.                                               4. Is it contrary to Articles 39 and/or 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                              Treaty, or the general principles of equality and/or
                                                                              proportionality, for the costs of health inspections by
f 1 ) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .                                            veterinary surgeons of animals intended for slaughter to
                                                                              be borne by the slaughterhouse at which the animals are
                                                                              to be slaughtered ?
                                                                        (!) OJ No L 121 , 29 . 7. 1964, p. 2012 .
                                                                        (2) OJ No L 268 , 24. 9 . 1991 , p. 69.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England), Bristol Mercantile Court, by order of that
court of 20 January 1995 , in the case of Woodspring District
               Council against Bakers of Nailsea Ltd
                                                                        References for a preliminary ruling from the
                           (Case C-27/95 )                              Marknadsdomstolen by three decisions of that court of
                            ( 95/C 101/03 )                             7 February 1995 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen
                                                                        v. De Agostini ( Svenska) Fôrlag AB and in the case of
                                                                             Konsumentombudsmannen v. TV-Shop i Sverige AB
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                (Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95 )
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice ( England ), Bristol Mercantile Court, of 20 January                                      ( 95/C 101/04 )
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
Woodspring District Council against Bakers of Nailsea Ltd,              European Communities by three decisions of the
on the following questions:                                             Marknadsdomstolen [Market Court] of 7 February 1994,
                                                                        which were received at the Court Registry on 1 3 February
                                                                        1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1 , is a private party in the circumstances of this case                Konsumentombudsmannen [Consumers' Ombudsman] v.
      entitled to rely in the national court upon Articles 39 and       De Agostini ( Svenska ) AB ( Case C-34/94 ) and in the cases of
      40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, and/or the general principles of       Konsumentombudsmannen v,. TV-Shop i Sverige AB ( Cases
      proportionality and equal treatment, as grounds for               C-35/95 and C-36/95 ) on the following questions :
      challenging the validity of Community legislation ?
                                                                        are Article 30 or Article 59 of the Treaty or Directive
2. Is Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on                   89/552/EEC (*) of 3 October 1989 to be interpreted as:
      health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
      fresh meat (*) as amended and replaced by Council
      Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991 amending and
                                                                        (a ) preventing a Member State from taking action against
      consolidating Directive 64/433/EEC on health problems
                                                                               television advertisements which an advertiser arranges
                                                                               to have broadcast from another Member State (in all
      affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat to extend                  three cases );
      it to the production and marketing of fresh meat ( 2)
      invalid, having regard to Articles 39 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
      Treaty and the general principle of proportionality, in so        ( b ) precluding application of Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Radiolag
      far as it requires and/or permits Member States to                        ( 1966:755 ) prohibiting advertisements directed at
      require health inspections at slaughterhouses to be                      children (in Case C-34/95 only)?
      carried out by veterinary surgeons and/or in so far as it
      requires ante-mortem inspections to be carried out?               (!) OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p . 23 .
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:


title: Case T-101/13: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/87

         Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission
   (Case T-101/13) (1)

   (2016/C 048/96)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-104/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2009 — ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v OHIM (Shape of a spray bottle) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a spray bottle — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2009 — ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v OHIM (Shape of a spray bottle)
   (Case T-104/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a spray bottle - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 141/84
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and G. Hasselblatt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 November 2007 (Case R 1656/2006-1), relating to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a spray bottle

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-551/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2014 by Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-634/13 Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH v European Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/22

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2014 by Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-634/13 Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH v European Commission

   (Case C-551/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH (represented by: S. Kobes, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 in Case T-634/13, in so far as the action is dismissed;

               2.

               Grant, in its entirety, the claim in the application made at first instance to the effect that Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2013) 5666) is annulled in so far as it rejects the inscription of the installation listed in Annex I, Point A, to that decision with the installation identifier DE000000000000563 on the list of installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC (2) which Germany submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the corresponding preliminary annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to these installations;

               3.

               In the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to in 1. above and refer the case back to that court;

               4.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant submits that there has been an infringement of EU law for the purposes of the third option in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It submits that the General Court failed to have regard to the fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality in regarding as compatible with EU law the Commission’s rejection of the allocation of emission allowances free of charge on the basis of a Member State’s clause in respect of hardship cases. The appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal infringes its rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   The appellant submits, in respect of the ground of appeal put forward, that the Commission did not, in laying down the rules in respect of the free allocation of emission allowances in Decision 2011/278/EU (3), make any provision for individual fundamental rights to be adequately protected. It takes the view that the free allocation of emission allowances under Decision 2011/278/EU takes place on the basis of standardised calculation parameters. It submits that that decision does not, however, contain any rules which allow for an additional allocation of emission allowances free of charge in cases in which the allocation made by applying the standardised calculation parameters would lead to an abnormal burden or unreasonable hardship in individual cases.
   In the appellant’s view, the dismissal of the action infringes the fundamental rights in the Charter and the principle of proportionality. The General Court took into account only the onerous effect which typically occurs as a result of the emissions trading scheme and the allocation regime under Decision 2011/278/EU. The appellant submits that, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the General Court completely disregarded the necessary protection of its individual fundamental rights.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27.

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (3)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case T-155/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of an undertaking — Complaint — Rejection)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission
   (Case T-155/04) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Complaint - Rejection)
   (2006/C 331/74)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, Rome (Italy) (represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Oliver and L. Visaggio, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, L. Visaggio and F. Amato, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne (Eurocontrol) (European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation) (represented by F. Montag and T. Wessely, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment or amendment of the Commission decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to alleged breach by Eurocontrol of the provisions of the EC Treaty in the field of competition)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.