title: Case T-104/14 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-130/11, Verile and Gjergji v Commission

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/22

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-130/11, Verile and Gjergji v Commission
   (Case T-104/14 P)
   2014/C 151/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-130/11 Verile and Gjergji v Commission;

               —

               declare that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings;

               —

               order Mr Verile and Ms Gjergji to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging a misapplication of the concept of a measure having adverse effects in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the action at first instance was admissible, characterising the proposal made by the Commission to the interested parties concerning the number of years of pensionable service to be credited in the context of the transfer of their pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union as a measure having adverse effects (relating to paragraphs 37 to 55 of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal unlawfully raised of its own motion the plea of illegality in respect of the general implementing provisions concerning the transfer of pension rights adopted in 2011. The Commission claims that the plea was not expressly raised by the applicants at first instance and, moreover, was not the subject of an exchange of arguments (relating to paragraphs 72 and 73 of the judgment under appeal).

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the interpretation of Article 11 of Annexe VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the provisions relating to the transfer of pension rights (relating to paragraphs 74 to 98, 106, 109 and 110 of the judgment under appeal). The Commission claims that, since the concept of ‘[updated] capital value’ referred to in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII is different from the concept of ‘actuarial equivalent’ referred to in Article 11(1) and defined in Article 8 of Annex VIII, the Civil Service Tribunal limited itself to a literal interpretation in coming to conclusions liable to give rise to significant inequalities between officials requesting an inward transfer of their pension rights and those requesting an outward transfer. The Commission maintains that the Civil Service Tribunal’s interpretation is incompatible with both the need to maintain a financial equilibrium in the European Union pension scheme and the property rights of officials requesting an inward transfer.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding that the rights of the applicants at first instance in relation to the transfer of their rights were already ‘fully constituted’ at the time of the entry into force of the general implementing provisions concerning the transfer of pension rights adopted in 2011, since only the final decision on the number of years of pensionable service to be credited would establish the transferred pension rights (relating to paragraphs 99 to 108 of the judgment under appeal).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-416/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/18/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-416/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 106/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-416/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 October 2003 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-536/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG and Others

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG and Others
   (Case C-536/11)
   2012/C 13/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde

      Defendants: Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH.

      Other parties to the proceedings: Bundeskartellanwalt, Verband Druck & Medientechnik

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does European Union law, in particular in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer, preclude a provision of national antitrust law which, (inter alia) in proceedings involving the application of Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU in conjunction with Regulation 1/2003/EC, (1) makes the grant of access to documents before the cartel court to third persons who are not parties to the proceedings, so as to enable them to prepare actions for damages against cartel participants, subject, without exception, to the condition that all the parties to the proceedings must give their consent, and which does not allow the court to weigh on a case-by-case basis the interests protected by European Union law with a view to determining the conditions under which access to the file is to be permitted or refused?

         If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

               2.

               Does European Union law preclude such a national provision where, although the latter applies in the same way to purely national antitrust proceedings and, moreover, does not contain any special rules in respect of documents made available by applicants for leniency, comparable national provisions applicable to other types of proceedings, in particular contentious and non-contentious civil and criminal proceedings, allow access to documents before the court even without the consent of the parties, provided that the third person who is not party to the proceedings adduces prima facie evidence to show that he has a legal interest in obtaining access to the file and that such access is not precluded in the case in question by the overriding interests of another person or overriding public interests?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-346/99: Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
— there exists a parallel file with regard to the present case;               Commission. Moreover, it is not manifestly evident that
                                                                              the application of that measure gives rise to a distortion of
— her rights under the Staff Regulations (Article 4 of                        competition which would affect intra-Community trade.
    Annex VII to the Staff Regulations) were infringed so far
    as concerns the substance of her case.                               — the Commission misinterpreted the concept of ‘nature or
                                                                              scheme of the system’, which the defendant institution
                                                                              itself (uses) in its Communication on tax aid. In that
                                                                              connection, the applicant considers the provincial legis-
                                                                              lation at issue is supported by a long historical tradition,
                                                                              both at provincial and national level, and lays down
                                                                              objective criteria of general application, which do not
                                                                              discriminate between classes of economic operators to the
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                           detriment of some of them and which are necessary in
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                      order to achieve the objective pursued, as well as to ensure
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                         the proper and efficient operation of the system of which
                           Communities                                        it forms part.
                                                                         — it is impossible for the Spanish authorities to have infringed
                         (Case T-346/99)
                                                                              the obligation to notify laid down in Article 88(3) of the
                                                                              EC Treaty, since they have always been certain that the
                          (2000/C 79/72)                                      reduction of the basis of assessment in question in no way
                                                                              constitutes State aid. The applicant would go so far as to
                                                                              describe as absurd the requirement that measures be
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                            notified where there are not even any doubts as to their
                                                                              general nature.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — the Commission misused its powers in so far as it takes
European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                     the view that the Commission used its power to engage
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                      procedures under Articles 87 and 88 in order to pursue
Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus                    objectives relating to tax harmonisation.
Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and
Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels        Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the obligation to
at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Avenue de                    state reasons for measures.
Cortenbergh.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 6 of
    Provincial Law of Alava No 24/1996, as State aid within              Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
    the meaning of Article 87 EC;                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
                                                                         Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against the Commission of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                    the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-347/99)
The applicant contests the characterisation as State aid of the                                    (2000/C 79/73)
reduction of the basis of assessment for corporation tax,
provided for in Article 26 of Provincial Law of Alava
No 24/1996 for newly created undertakings which invest a                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
minimum of PTA 80 million, create 10 new jobs and have a
minimum paid-up capital of PTA 20 million.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:                  European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia — Diputa-
— the Commission misinterpreted Article 87 of the EC                     ción Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa (Spain) represented by
    Treaty, inasmuch as it regarded the reduction of the basis           Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the
    for assessment for newly created undertakings as State aid.          Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for
    The tax measure in question is of general application                service in Brussels at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados,
    and lacks the selective nature attributed to it by the               60 Avenue de Cortenbergh.


title: Case T-354/12: Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Afepadi and Others v Commission

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/30

         Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Afepadi and Others v Commission
   (Case T-354/12)
   2012/C 295/54
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi) (Barcelona, Spain), Elaboradores Dietéticos, SA (Spain), Nova Diet, SA (Burgos, Spain), Laboratorios Vendrell, SA (Spain), Ynsadiet, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Velázquez González, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul recitals 11, 14 and 17 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EU) 432/2012 as they are seriously detrimental to the applicants’ interests;

               —

               in the interest of legal certainty, declare that the rejection of the health claims listed in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council must result from a legislative act;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 16 May 2012 the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health. (1) That regulation implements Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. (2)

   In support of their action, the applicants claim that the principle of legal certainty has been infringed.
   In that regard, it claims that, in spite of the work which has been carried out, the Commission’s task laid down in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of adopting a Community list of permitted claims has not been fulfilled in its entirety, since not all of the health claims submitted for evaluation by the EFSA were made subject to an authorisation decision. Consequently, a large number of statements remain to be evaluated for the first time or to be evaluated more extensively, including evaluations of botanical substances which the applicants frequently use in their foodstuffs.
   In that way, operators in the foodstuff production sector and users of botanical substances know, with certainty, which health claims are based on generally accepted scientific data (the 222 authorised health claims) and which may be used in their products. However, they have not been informed in the same way (by means of a regulation) of the situation as regards claims which are not on the authorised list, that is to say, whether they are pending evaluation or require further evaluation, whether they have been rejected, whether they have been authorised or not, or when and in what time-frame.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.


8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-489/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-492/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/40)                                                         (2003/C 55/43)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-489/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-492/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Immobiliare Flavia Srl, in        ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Colleoni Giacomo e Figli
liquidation, v Ministero delle Finanze.                                Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-490/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-134/00 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/41)                                                         (2003/C 55/44)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-490/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-134/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Azzini SpA v Ministero            ruling by the Tribunale di Trento): Ministry of Finance v
delle Finanze.                                                         Merkur Chemical s.r.l..
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-491/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-88/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/42)                                                         (2003/C 55/45)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-491/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-88/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Falegnameria Carminati di         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Agricola Torriani Sas v
Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc v Ministero delle Finanze.             Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Case T-53/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Aecops v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/20

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Aecops v Commission
   (Case T-53/11)
   2011/C 139/39
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: AECOPS — Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with and for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 relating to file No 89 0771 P1, reducing to PTE 48 504 201 the amount of the assistance granted by Commission Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 and. at the same time, requiring reimbursement of the amount of EUR 628 880,97;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay both its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on @@ plea(s) in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to observe a reasonable time-limit within which to take the decision, as a result of which:

                           —

                           the proceedings are time-barred: the applicant maintains that the contested decision was adopted after the elapse of the period of four years fixed for the limitation of proceedings, as provided for by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Likewise, even if there had been an interruption to the running of the limitation period for the proceedings, twice the limitation period had elapsed without any decision’s having been adopted, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation. The contested decision must be considered unlawful and incapable of being given effect, for the exercise of the corresponding right is time-barred;

                           —

                           breach of the principle of legal certainty: the applicant takes the view that the fact of the Commission’s having let more than 20 years go by between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision entailed disregard for the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of the legal order of the European Union states that all persons have the right to have the matters concerning them dealt with by the institutions of the Union within a reasonable period;

                           —

                           breach of rights of defence: the applicant claims that its rights of defence have been breached, inasmuch as, seeing that more than 20 years passed between the occurrence of the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the applicant was deprived of any chance of submitting its observations in good time, that is to say, at a time when it still held documents that might have enabled it to explain the expenditure considered ineligible by the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons: the applicant argues that the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons imposed by Article 296 TFEU. The contested decision does not explain, even summarily, what reasons led to the reduction of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund, nor does the letter of the European Social Fund Management Institute notifying the applicant of the contested decision explain, in an even remotely comprehensible manner, the reasons prompting the reduction of that assistance or which expenditure was, and which was not, eligible. In the applicant’s view, the defect of want of reasoning must lead the Court to annul the contested decision.


title: Case T-140/12: Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/26

         Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
   (Case T-140/12)
   2012/C 165/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC (Queen’s Counsel), K. Bacon, Barrister, G. Morgan and C. Drew, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the applicants’ application for a marketing authorisation;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the refusal to validate their application for the authorisation of a generic version of an orphan medicinal product is contrary to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) properly interpreted. In particular, it is contrary to the wording and effect of Article 8, as well as the policy underlying the said regulation and its travaux préparatoires, to exclude a generic version of an orphan medicinal product from the market for more than the ten year period stipulated in Article 8(1) of the said regulation. The applicants further allege that Article 8(3) permits an authorisation for a similar product to be granted during that 10 year period, by way of derogation from Article 8(1), in certain specified circumstances. Such authorisation should not, however, have the effect of extending the 10 year market exclusivity for the first orphan product.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1)


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-362/04, C-363/04, C-364/04 and C-365/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/68)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 21 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases C-362/04, C-363/04, C-364/04 and C-365/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Symvoulio tis Epikrateias): Michaniki A.E., Tholos A.E. v Ypourgos Politismou, Ypourgos Perivallontos, Chorotaxias and Dimosion Ergon.

      (1)  OJ C 273 of 06.11.2004.

      OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.


3.7.1999              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 188/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/98 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-328/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 188/58)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/59)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 22 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-353/98: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-328/98: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                  (1) OJ No C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Case C-31/07: Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-31/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/66)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


               11.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/18

         Composition of the Chambers and attachment of the Judges to Chambers
   2009/C 270/06
   By decision of 30 November 2005 (1), the Tribunal decided to sit in three Chambers and as a full Court. By decision of 24 September 2008 (2), for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2011, the Tribunal elected as President of the First Chamber Judge S. GERVASONI. By decision of 7 October 2009, for the period from 7 October 2009 to 30 September 2011, the Tribunal elected as President of the Second Chamber Judge H. TAGARAS and attached the Judges to the Chambers as follows:

                  First Chamber

               S. GERVASONI, President of Chamber,
               H. KREPPEL and M.I. ROFES I PUJOL, Judges,

                  Second Chamber

               H. TAGARAS, President of Chamber,
               I. BORUTA and S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH, Judges,

                  Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges

               P. MAHONEY, President of the Tribunal,
               H. KREPPEL, I. BORUTA, S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH and M.I. ROFES I PUJOL, Judges.

         In the Third Chamber, the President will sit, alternately, either with Judges H. KREPPEL and S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH or with Judges I. BORUTA and M.I. ROFES I PUJOL, subject always to connections between cases.

      (1)  OJ C 322, 17.12.2005, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment — Actions for damages)

text:
22.2.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/23
1.     Annuls the decision of 1 March 2000 of the European                  3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
       Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, rejecting an
       application for variation of certain terms of the marketing
       authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Daquiran’;                  (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs incurred by the applicant and the EFPIA, intervener;
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
                                                                            in Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement
                                                                            of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
                       of 12 December 2002                                  equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                                                                                Actions for damages)
in Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)                                                        (2003/C 44/42)
(Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement                                     (Language of the case: French)
of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                        Actions for damages)
                                                                            In Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-
                            (2003/C 44/41)                                  mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                     (Language of the case: French)                         mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-
                                                                            Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the
                                                                            post of Head of Unit 2 ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
In Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-                  transport’ within Directorate F ‘Consumer goods and capital
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                  goods industries’ within the Directorate-General for Compe-
represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,                  tition (COM/070/99) and of its decision to appoint a different
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                     applicant to the post and an application for damages — the
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                   Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeg-
Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of                    er, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi, Judges; J. Palacio
the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to                   González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
the post of Head of Unit 1 ‘Post and telecommunications,                    judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
information society coordination’ within Directorate C ‘Infor-
mation, communication and multimedia’ within the Director-                  1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
ate-General for Competition (COM/069/99) and of its decision
to appoint a different applicant to the post and an application
for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the               3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2000 in Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid — Prima facie case — Urgency)

text:
7.4.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/19
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
J. Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden, v Commission of the European                                              INSTANCE
Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision of the selection board not to                                           of 8 December 2000
admit the applicant to the written tests in open competition
COM/A/12/98 and, second, for an order requiring the defend-
                                                                            in Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof and Others v
ant to pay damages — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
28 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                                ation — State aid — Prima facie case — Urgency)
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/34)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), BP Direct vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), and Actomat BV, established in
                                                                            Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by M. van Empel and
                                                                            M. Smeets, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Harles, Arendt &
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
                                                                            Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M.A. Fierstra), v Com-
                        of 16 October 2000                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            H.M.H. Speyart) — application for partial suspension of
in Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission                         operation of the Commission’s decision 1999/705/EC of
               of the European Communities (1)                              20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
                                                                            for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance made an order on 8 December 2000, the operative
                          (2001/C 108/33)                                   part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA, established at
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Alessio Vianello, of the
Venice Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet,
A. Abate and E. Cappelli) — application for annulment of
the Commission’s decision C(1999) 1524 of 2 June 1999                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
concerning State aid granted by the Italian Government to                                                INSTANCE
Seleco SpA, inasmuch as it considers the applicant to be jointly
and severally liable to repay that part of the aid which has not                                 of 14 December 2000
been recovered from Seleco — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                 in Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging
President, and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and                      voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Com-
N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            mission of the European Communities
16 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case             (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
      T-195/99 SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission in favour of the               ation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank
      Court of Justice, in order that the latter Court may rule on the                           guarantee — Urgency)
      application for annulment.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/35)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de
                                                                            Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied, established in The


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 April 2000 in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur): Christelle Deliège v Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL and Others (Freedom to provide services — Competition rules applicable to undertakings — Judokas — Sports rules providing for national quotas and national federations' selection procedures for participation in international tournaments)

text:
C 176/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.6.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 11 April 2000
                                                                                of 11 April 2000
in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance
de Namur): Christelle Deliège v Ligue Francophone de                        in Case C-356/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL and Others (1)                     the Immigration Adjudicator): Arben Kaba v Secretary of
                                                                                State for the Home Department (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Competition rules applicable
to undertakings — Judokas — Sports rules providing for
                                                                            (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Free movement of workers
national quotas and national federations’ selection pro-
                                                                            — Social advantage — Right of the spouse of a migrant
    cedures for participation in international tournaments)
                                                                            worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory
                                                                                of a Member State)
                           (2000/C 176/02)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: English)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-51/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                In Case C-356/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance de                     the EC Treaty from the Immigration Adjudicator, United
Namur, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
pending before that court between Christelle Deliège and Ligue              before that court between Arben Kaba and Secretary of State
Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL, Ligue                    for the Home Department — on the interpretation of Article
Belge de Judo ASBL, Union Européenne de Judo (C-51/96) and                  7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
between Christelle Deliège and Ligue Francophone de Judo et                 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within
Disciplines Associées ASBL, Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL, François              the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475)
Pacquée (C-191/97) — on the interpretation of Articles 59 of                — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC), 60, 66,                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón,
85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 55 EC, 81 EC                Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
and 82 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,              G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and                      A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puisso-            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                     on 11 April 2000, in which it has ruled:
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 April
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                Legislation of a Member State which requires spouses of migrant
                                                                            workers who are nationals of other Member States to have resided in
                                                                            the territory of that Member State for four years before they become
A rule requiring professional or semi-professional athletes or persons
                                                                            entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain and to have their
aspiring to take part in a professional or semi-professional activity to
                                                                            applications considered, but which requires residence of only 12
have been authorised or selected by their federation in order to be able
                                                                            months for the spouses of persons who are settled in that territory,
to participate in a high-level international sports competition, which
                                                                            does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 7(2) of
does not involve national teams competing against each other, does
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
not in itself, as long as it derives from a need inherent in the
                                                                            on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
organisation of such a competition, constitute a restriction on the
freedom to provide services prohibited by Article 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).
                                                                            (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996; OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.


title: Case F-75/08: Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Aparicio and Others v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/56

         Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Aparicio and Others v Commission
   (Case F-75/08)
   (2008/C 285/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Jorge Aparicio (Antiguo Cuscatlan, Salvador) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, illegality of Article 5(1)(d) of the General Implementing Provisions relating to the selection procedure for members of contract staff under Article 3a and, secondly, annulment of EPSO's decisions not to include the applicants' names on the list of successful candidates and in the database for the recruitment procedure CAST 27/Relex.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare Article 5(1)(d) of the General Implementing Provisions relating to the selection procedure for members of contract staff under Article 3a illegal;

               —

               Annul EPSO's decision not to include the applicants' names on the list of successful candidates and in the database for the recruitment procedure CAST 27/Relex

               —

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


title: Case C-302/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave (Slovak Republic) lodged on 24 May 2017 — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave (Slovak Republic) lodged on 24 May 2017 — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty
   (Case C-302/17)
   (2017/C 269/07)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Bratislave

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PPC Power a.s.

      Defendants: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

      Question referred

   Are the aims of, and the principles underlying Directive 2003/87/EC (1) establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Directive 96/61/EC (2) (‘the Directive’) — and more specifically (i) the objective of reducing emissions by means of technological developments (Article 1 and recitals 2 and 20 of the Directive), (ii) the objectives of maintaining economic development, preserving the integrity of the internal market and maintaining competition (recitals 5 and 7), (iii) the objective of ensuring financially and economically advantageous conditions for reducing emissions (Article 1), the principle of legal certainty for operators within the meaning of Article 3(f), inasmuch as operators are entitled, in accordance with Article 9, to rely on the fact that national allocation plans are to remain unchanged during the 18 months before the beginning of the relevant period (that is to say, for the period 2008 to 2012, from 30 June 2006 at the latest), (iv) the requirement that emission allowances must be allocated free of charge (Article 10), (v) the right of the persons referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) to be issued with replacement allowances for those with which they have been issued and which the Member States have … cancelled in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 13(3) — to be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State which imposes on operators, within the meaning of Article 3(f) of the Directive, that are subject to tax in the territory of the Member State concerned, an obligation to pay a special tax (i) the legal basis of which is that the issue of emission allowances (in the case of non-use or sale) is taxed regardless of whether or not the operator derives a profit, (ii) where the emission allowances were allocated to the operator on the basis of the national allocation plan submitted by the Member State to the European Commission for the period 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Article 9 of the Directive (that is to say, notified to the Commission and the Member States under Article 9(1) of the Directive and not rejected by the Commission in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Directive) and which, in accordance with Article 10 of the Directive, provides that, for the five-year period beginning on 1 January 2008, 100 % of the emission allowances are to be allocated free of charge, (iii) where the rate of this tax is 80 % of the emission allowance tax base, which is determined as being the sum of the multiplication of the emission allowances transferred (sold) in each calendar month and the average market price of allowances in the calendar month preceding the month in which the transfer takes place and of the multiplication of unused allowances and the average market price of allowances for the calendar year concerned and (v) where the average market prices are calculated as the simple arithmetic mean of the prices of the last trade on a stock exchange (that is to say, where the tax is not based on the price at which the emission allowances were actually sold)?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.


title: Case T-195/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark nuna — Earlier Community word marks NANA and NANU-NANA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)
   (Case T-195/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark nuna - Earlier Community word marks NANA and NANU-NANA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 388/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nuna International BV (Erp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Alpera Plazas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV, as regards the ‘strollers; buggies; safety car seats for children’ in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘baby walkers’ and ‘sleeping bags for baby and children’ in Class 20;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case F-76/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Tsirimokos v European Parliament

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/16

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Tsirimokos v European Parliament
   (Case F-76/06)
   (2006/C 237/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Tsirimokos (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the European Parliament′s decision of 25 October 2005 confirmed 19 April 2006;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a European Parliament official since 1 May 1981, lodged, 7 September 2005 a request to work part time in preparation for retirement, as provided for by Article 55a of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of Annex IVa of the Staff Regulations. In the calculation of the percentage of the basic salary to which the applicant was entitled, the administration did not take into account the years of pensionable service that the applicant had acquired before being recruited by the European Parliament.
   In support of his action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law:

               —

               firstly, breach of Article 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               secondly, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials;

               —

               thirdly, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case F-10/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — André v Commission (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Contract Conference interpreter — Conditions for payment of the flat-rate travel allowance)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — André v Commission
   (Case F-10/06) (1)

   (Officials - Auxiliary staff - Contract Conference interpreter - Conditions for payment of the flat-rate travel allowance)
   (2006/C 331/106)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniel André (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Jourdan, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission decision of 6 October 2005 refusing to pay the applicant, in respect of services provided for and at the request of the Court of Justice on 12 and 13 January 2005, the flat-rate allowance laid down by Article 7 of the Agreement on working conditions and financial terms for contract conference interpreters recruited by the institutions of the European Union and, secondly, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, dated 8 March 2005, refusing Mr André the flat-rate travel allowance in respect of services provided on 12 and 13 January 2005 for the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg;

               2.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant that allowance, plus default interest at a rate two points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question, from 14 February 2005;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-113/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 ‘Spezzino’ , Associazione nazionale pubblica assistenza (ANPAS) — Comitato regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria v San Lorenzo Soc. coop. sociale, Croce Verde Cogema cooperativa sociale Onlus (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Ambulance services — National legislation reserving ambulance services for public health establishments to registered voluntary associations fulfilling the legal requirements on a preferential basis — Compatibility with EU law — Public procurement — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Directive 2004/18/EC — Mixed services, covered both by Annex II A and Annex II B to Directive 2004/18 — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Concept of ‘public service contracts’  — Pecuniary nature — Consideration consisting in the reimbursement of expenses incurred)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 ‘Spezzino’, Associazione nazionale pubblica assistenza (ANPAS) — Comitato regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria v San Lorenzo Soc. coop. sociale, Croce Verde Cogema cooperativa sociale Onlus
   (Case C-113/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Ambulance services - National legislation reserving ambulance services for public health establishments to registered voluntary associations fulfilling the legal requirements on a preferential basis - Compatibility with EU law - Public procurement - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/EC - Mixed services, covered both by Annex II A and Annex II B to Directive 2004/18 - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Concept of ‘public service contracts’ - Pecuniary nature - Consideration consisting in the reimbursement of expenses incurred))
   (2015/C 046/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 ‘Spezzino’, Associazione nazionale pubblica assistenza (ANPAS) — Comitato regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria

      Defendants: San Lorenzo Soc. coop. sociale, Croce Verde Cogema cooperativa sociale Onlus

      Intervening parties: Croce Rossa Italiana — Comitato regionale Liguria and Others

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the provision of urgent and emergency ambulance services must be entrusted on a preferential basis and awarded directly, without any advertising, to the voluntary associations covered by the agreements, in so far as the legal and contractual framework in which the activity of those associations is carried out actually contributes to the social purpose and the pursuit of the objectives of the good of the community and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation is based.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/54

         (2006/C 224/115)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

      OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

      OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

      OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

      OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-784/16: Action brought on 1 November 2016 – Pilla v Commission and EACEA

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/52

         Action brought on 1 November 2016 – Pilla v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-784/16)
   (2017/C 006/65)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rinaldo Pilla (Venafro, Italy) (represented by: A. Silvestri, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission, Agenzia esecutiva per l'istruzione, gli audiovisivi e la cultura

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               suspend the selection procedure in progress and annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 2 September 2016 (Directorate General for Education and Culture, Ref. Ares 2016 4930111) excluding Rinaldo Pilla from participation in a funding project, on the grounds of serious infringement of the law, and, failing that, annul the selection in its entirety, on the ground that it is unlawful;

               —

               if, which is denied, the Court finds that Rinaldo Pilla is not a suitable candidate, order the defendants to compensate the applicant for loss of opportunity as a result of his unjustifiable and unsubstantiated exclusion from the European funding project in question, assessed, in the first instance, at EUR 1 050 000,00, and, in the alternative, at EUR 400 000,00.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision excluding the applicant from selection for participation in European funding (Call for proposals EAC/S05/2016, Support for a preparatory action to create an EU Festival Award and an EU Festival Label in the field of Culture: EFFE (Europe for Festivals — Festivals for Europe)).
   The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of his action.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging serious infringement relating to Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2013, Article 2(28) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320), the Council’s forecasts of 17 December 2013, and Article 1(821) of the 2016 Stability Law.

                           —

                           In support of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that a self-employed individual, even if not registered with a professional association, is equivalent to an undertaking, irrespective of legal form, for the purposes of access to the structural funds. Self-employed individuals may access the funds for scientific research and cultural and industrial innovation. The applicant claims that the contested decision did not take into account the fact that the 2016 Stability Law, which implements a 2013 European recommendation, definitively stated that self-employed individuals are equivalent to undertakings. The applicant must be regarded as a suitable applicant since he is a VAT-registered self-employed individual.

               2.

               Second plea in law concerning the claim for damages.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that his exclusion from the selection procedure caused him serious harm since there can be no doubt that the failure to include him in the selection procedure for the ‘VENAFRO EUROPEAN FESTIVAL OF LITERATURE’ project clearly constitutes loss of opportunity, which must be assessed fairly, taking into account the nature and scale of that project, and which, prima facie, can only be regarded as equivalent to the value of the funding for that project.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 21 February 1995 in the case of 1. Data Delecta Aktiebolag, 2. Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd (Case C-43/95)

text:
No C 119/4          IEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 5 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties             Reference for a preliminary ruling from Hogsta Domstolen
Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 1 February            by order of that court of 21 February 1995 in the case of
1995 , in the case of Conoco Ltd against Commissioners of                 1 . Data Delecta Aktiebolag, 2. Ronny Forsberg v.
                     Customs and Excise                                                   MSL Dynamics Ltd
                         (Case C-40/95 )                                                     (Case C-43/95 )
                           95/C 119/07                                                         95/C 119/08 )
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               European Communities by an order of Hogsta Domstolen
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties             ( Supreme Court) of 21 February 1995, which was received
Tribunal, London, of 1 February 1995 , which was received            at the Court Registry on 24 February 1995 , for a
at the Court Registry on 20 February 1995, for a                     preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Data Delecta Aktiebolag,
preliminary ruling in the case of Conoco Ltd against                 2 . Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd on the following
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                question:
questions:
                                                                     Under Paragraph 1 of Law 1980:307 on the obligation for
What, on the proper construction of Article 11A 1 ( a ) and          foreign plaintiffs to logde security for costs of judicial
Article 11C 1 of the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC)           proceedings, a foreign legal person who wishes to bring
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the               proceedings before a Swedish court against Swedish
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                    nationals or Swedish legal persons must, at the defendant's
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (*), is       application, lodge security for the costs of the judicial
the taxable amount of a supplier in the situation of Conoco          proceedings which the foreign legal person may be obliged
Ltd ( as found in paragraph 5 of the Preliminary Decision),          to pay by virtue of a final decision in the case . Under
where :                                                              Paragraph 5 of that Law foreign legal persons are exempt
                                                                     from that obligation to the extent that that has been agreed
                                                                     in international agreements binding on Sweden. In the
( a ) the supplier procures the issue of a 'money-off' coupon        Government's notice 1991:112 on certain exemptions from
      which is redeemable at the stated amount (as printed on        the requirement for foreign plaintiffs to lodge security for
      the coupon) by the supplier in favour of a dealer who          costs of judicial proceedings et cetera no reference is made to
      has agreed to participate in a sales promotion                 any such agreement with regard to United Kingdom legal
      campaign;                                                      persons .
                                                                     In an action before the District Court for payment in respect
( b) the coupon, which is distributed to a potential customer        of supply of goods, the Swedish defendants have asked that
      in the course of the sales promotion campaign, must, as        the plaintiff, a United Kingdom company, should lodge
      a matter of contract between the supplier and the              sécurity for costs of judicial proceedings in accordance with
      dealer, be accepted by the dealer from a customer who          the provisions of the abovementioned Law.
      tenders it when purchasing more than a minimum
      specified amount of motor fuel from the dealer,                Is it contrary to the EC Treaty — primarily Article 6
      provided it is a valid coupon;                                 (formerly Article 7) — to require a plaintiff who is a United
                                                                     Kingdom legal person to lodge such a security when no such
(c) the customer on tendering the coupon is entitled as              security can be demanded from Swedish legal persons ?
      against the dealer to a reduction of a stated amount
      below the dealer's normal retail selling price of motor
      fuel;
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of
(d ) the supplier has supplied the motor fuel to the dealer at         the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      a price determined by an existing supply agreement;
      and                                                                                (Case C-45/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/09
(e) the dealer having accepted the coupon on the sale of the         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
      motor fuel to the customer, presents it to the supplier        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      and is paid the stated amount.                                 24 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, of its Legal
Is the supplier's taxable amount the price determined by the         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
supply agreement or that price less the stated amount?               Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
                                                                     Centre, Kirchberg.
(!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6. 1977, p . 1 .                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 , declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force a
                                                                          provision concerning value added tax which does not


title: Case F-82/11: Action brought on 17 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/41

         Action brought on 17 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-82/11)
   2011/C 340/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for a declaration that the elections to the Staff Committee of the Parliament, and the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process, is unlawful.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the elections to the Staff Committee of the European Parliament which were held between 27 October and 24 November 2010 are unlawful;

               —

               declare that the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process are unlawful;

               —

               annul the implied decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 20 May 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaint of 20 January 2011 requesting annulment of the results of the elections to the Staff Committee announced on 19 November 2010 and the results published on 23 and 24 November and 10 December 2010, and that fresh elections be held or at least a second round of voting;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2004 in Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Omission from the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 — Availability of staff reports)

text:
C 85/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             3.4.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               ed by É Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: L. Knudsen
                       of 14 January 2004                                 and D. Moore) — application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the secretariat of the Parliamentary Group of the
                                                                          European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting on 6 and
in Case T-109/01: Fleuren Compost BV v Commission of                      7 March 2001, to promote two temporary servants to
                the European Communities (1)                              Grade A 3 and, second, for compensation for the harm
                                                                          sustained by the applicant as a result of that promotion - the
(Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the                   Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
Kingdom of the Netherlands to manure-processing undertak-                 President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio
ings — Scheme approved by the Commission for a fixed                      González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
  period — Aid granted before or after the approved period)               judgment on 21 January 2004, in which it:
                          (2004/C 85/45)                                  1.    Annuls the decision of the secretariat of the Parliamentary
                                                                                Group of the European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                on 6 and 7 March 2001, promoting Ms F. and Mr M. to
                                                                                Grade A 3 with effect from 1 March 2001;
In Case T-109/01, Fleuren Compost BV, established in Mid-                 2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
delharnis (Netherlands), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. di
Bucci and H. van Vliet): Application for the annulment of                 (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
Commission Decision 2001/521/EC of 13 December 2000 on
the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands for six manure-processing companies (OJ 2001 L 189,
p. 13), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pir-
rung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges;
J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 January 2004, in which it:
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                     of 21 January 2004
(1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                in Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Promotion — Omission from the list of officials
                                                                             promoted to Grade A 5 — Availability of staff reports)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 85/47)
                       of 21 January 2004
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson v European Parlia-
                              ment (1)
(Temporary servant — Promotion to Grade A 3 — Staff of
                                                                          In Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis, an official of the
 the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Parties)
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
                                                                          sels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, with an
                          (2004/C 85/46)                                  address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, V. Joris and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the Com-
                                                                          mission’s decision of 6 April 2001 not to enter the applicant
                                                                          on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 in the 2001
                                                                          promotion round, the Court of First Instance, composed of
In Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson, a temporary servant of the               P. Mengozzi, Single Judge; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
European Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-           Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 January 2004, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 85/25
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 25 November 2003
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                           in Case T-85/01: IAMA Consulting S.r.l. v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Esprit Programme — Actions in the field of research
                                                                           and technological development — Community financing —
                                                                           Eligible expenditure — Arbitration clause — Action for
                                                                           annulment — Admissibility — Counterclaim — Jurisdiction
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 of the Court of First Instance)
                       of 20 January 2004
                                                                                (2004/C 85/49)
in Case T-195/02: Anselmo Briganti v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Officials — Open competition — Action for annulment —
Pre-selection procedure — Conduct of the tests — Retro-
active annulment of certain multiple-choice questions —
Principle of equal treatment — Principle of legitimate
                            expectations)                                  In Case T-85/01: IAMA Consulting S.r.l., established in Milan,
                                                                           represented by V. Salvatore, lawyer, against Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and A. Dal
                           (2004/C 85/48)                                  Ferro) – application for annulment of the provisions adopted
                                                                           by the Commission on 12 and 21 February 2001 relating to
                                                                           expenditure eligible for Community financing in connection
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         with the REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200 Projects, carried
                                                                           out under the European programme for research and develop-
                                                                           ment in information technologies (Esprit) — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance, composed, at the time of its deliberation, of V. Tiili,
                                                                           President, and P. Mengozzi, M. Vilaras, J. Pirrung and
In Case T-195/02: Anselmo Briganti, residing in Tarente (Italy),           A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
represented by G. Sciusco, lawyer, with an address for service             25 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-
munities (Agents: J. Currall and A. Dal Ferro) — application,
principally, for annulment of the decision of the selection
board in open competition Commission of the European                       (1) The forms of order sought as a main claim and in the alternative
Communities/A/11/01 not to admit the applicant to the tests                     by the applicant are dismissed as inadmissible.
subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the Court of First
Instance, composed of J. D. Cooke, Single Judge; H. Jung,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2004, in which it:                (2) The counterclaim by the Commission is referred back to the
                                                                                Court.
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           (3) The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.
(1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case T-309/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission (State aid — Animal carcass and slaughter waste disposal services — Maintaining epidemic reserve capacity — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market — ‘Undertaking’  — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Compensation relating to a public service obligation — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Existing aid or new aid — Need for aid — Subsidiarity — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Proportionality)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission
   (Case T-309/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Animal carcass and slaughter waste disposal services - Maintaining epidemic reserve capacity - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - ‘Undertaking’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation relating to a public service obligation - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Existing aid or new aid - Need for aid - Subsidiarity - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Proportionality))
   2014/C 292/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Rivenich, Germany) (represented by: A. Kerkmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and C. Egerer, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG (Selm, Germany); SecAnim GmbH (Lünen, Germany); and Knochen- und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU) (Selm) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Johann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/485/EU of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (OJ 2012 L 236, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG, SecAnim GmbH and Knochen- und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU) to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg to bear the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-376/17: Action brought on 14 June 2017 — Poland v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/30

         Action brought on 14 June 2017 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-376/17)
   (2017/C 269/41)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 2104 final of 4 April 2017 extending the suspension of monthly payments to Poland concerning preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector within the framework of the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (1) read in conjunction with the introductory wording of the first subparagraph of that provision and Article 41(2)(b) of that regulation, by extending the suspension of monthly payments on the basis of errors of fact and misinterpretation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions for suspending monthly payments were not met.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by maintaining the rate of suspension of monthly payments at a level that was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential loss to the European Union budget.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).


title: Case T-14/13: Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/19

         Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)
   (Case T-14/13)
   2013/C 86/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seal Trademarks Pty Ltd (Queensland, Australia) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exel Composites Oyj (Mäntyharju, Finland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s Decision of 11 October 2012 or;

               —

               Subsidiarily, modify it, because it goes contrary to Articles 42, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 8, paragraph 1, letter b) of the CTMR (expressly sentencing OHIM to court fees).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XCEL’ for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 3 809 571

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2 996 891, Austrian trade mark registration No 149 726 and Swedish trade mark registration No 324 307 of the word mark ‘EXEL’ for goods in classes 18 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-574/11: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/44

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)
   (Case T-574/11) (1)

   2014/C 45/75
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.