title: Case T-722/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — PRIMA v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of relative advantages of the successful tender — Transparency)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — PRIMA v Commission
   (Case T-722/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of relative advantages of the successful tender - Transparency))
   (2016/C 106/37)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicants: PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Y. Ruskov, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo, P. Mihaylova and D. Roussanov, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of, first, the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events, and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, the ‘subsequent decisions’, including that of 12 September 2014 to conclude the contract for its performance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95: Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) Cement market — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Single and continuous infringement — General agreement and measures of implementation — Liability for an infringement — Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation — Links between the general agreement and the measures of implementation as regards objects and participants — Fine — Determination of the amount)

text:
C 122/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                        bourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue; T-36/95
                        of 15 March 2000                                Syndicat National de l’Industrie Cimentière (SFIC), established
                                                                        in Paris, represented by Édouard Didier and Jean-Claude
in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95,                     Rivalland, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95,                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58
T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95,                   Rue Charles Martel; T-37/95 Vicat SA, established in Paris,
T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95,                   represented by Édouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of
T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95,                   the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95,                   Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel;
T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and               T-38/95 Groupe Origny SA, established in Paris, successor to
T-104/95: Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission of                    Cedest SA, represented by Xavier de Roux and Marie-Pia Hutin,
                 the European Communities (1)                           of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; T-39/95
                                                                        Ciments Français SA, established in Paris, represented by
(Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article
                                                                        Antoine Winckler, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
81(1) EC) Cement market — Rights of the defence — Access
                                                                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen,
to the file — Single and continuous infringement — General
                                                                        2 Place Winston Churchill; T-42/95 Heidelberger Zement AG,
agreement and measures of implementation — Liability for
an infringement — Evidence of participation in the general              established in Heidelberg, Germany, represented by Rainer
agreement and measures of implementation — Links                        Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, and Hans-Jörg Niemeyer,
between the general agreement and the measures of                       Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart and Brussels, with an address for
implementation as regards objects and participants — Fine               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
                — Determination of the amount)                          11 Rue Goethe; T-43/95 Lafarge Coppée SA, established in
                                                                        Paris, represented by Henry Lesguillons, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
                         (2000/C 122/39)                                Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; T-44/95 Aalborg Portland A/S,
                                                                        established in Aalborg, Denmark, represented by Karen Dye-
(Languages of the case: Danish, Dutch, English, French, German,         kjaer-Hansen and Katja Hoegh, Copenhagen, with an address
                   Greek, Portuguese and Spanish)                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                        Grand-Rue; T-45/95 Alsen AG, formerly Alsen-Breitenburg
                                                                        Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH, established in Hamburg,
In Joined Cases T-25/95 Cimenteries CBR SA, established
                                                                        Germany, represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin
in Brussels, represented by Michel Waelbroeck, Alexandre
                                                                        Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for
Vandencasteele, Denis Waelbroeck and, initially, also by Olivier
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 7 Val
Speltdoorn, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Sainte-Croix; T-46/95 Alsen AG, formerly Nordcement AG,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Mathias Hardt; T-26/95 Cembureau — Association Européen-                established in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Karlheinz
ne du Ciment, established in Brussels, represented by Julian            Moosecker and Martin Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf,
Ellison, Solicitor, and Mark Clough, Barrister, with an address         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31             Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix; T-48/95 Bundesverband der
Grand-Rue; T-30/95 Fédération de l’Industrie Cimentière Belge           Deutschen Zementindustrie eV, established in Cologne, Ger-
ASBL, established in Brussels, represented by Onno Willem               many, represented by Jochen Burrichter, Rechtsanwalt, Düssel-
Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, and Frédéric P. Louis, of the            dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue; T-50/95 Unicem
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; T-31/95 Eerste                  SpA, established in Turin, Italy, represented by Franzo Grande
Nederlandse Cementindustrie NV (ENCI), established in ’s-Her-           Stevens and Andrea Gandini, of the Turin Bar, GianDomenico
togenbosch, Netherlands, represented by Mark B.W. Biesheu-              Magrone and Cristoforo Osti, of the Rome Bar, with an address
vel, of the Hague Bar, and T. Martijn Snoep, of the Rotterdam           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   11 Rue Goethe; T-51/95 Fratelli Buzzi SpA, established in
Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix;             Casale Monferrato, Italy, represented by Guido Brosio, Carlo
T-32/95 Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC),                   Pavesio and Nicola Ceraolo, of the Turin Bar, Claudia Crescenzi
established in ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, represented by            and Silvia D’Alberti, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
Piet A. Wackie Eysten, of the Hague Bar, and T. Martijn                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of René Faltz, 6 Rue
Snoep, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in             Heinrich Heine; T-52/95 Compañia Valenciana de Cementos
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt,               Portland SA, established in Madrid, represented by Santiago
7 Val Sainte-Croix; T-34/95 Ciments luxembourgeois SA,                  Martı́nez Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamante Köster, of the
established in Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg, represented by             Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address                Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue; T-53/95 The Rugby
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31             Group plc, established in Rugby, United Kingdom, represented
Grand-Rue; T-35/95 Dyckerhoff AG, established in Wiesbaden,             by Lynda Martin Alegi, Solicitor, London, and Jacques Bour-
Germany, represented by Claus Tessin and Frank Montag,                  geois, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 122/19
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe;              Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
T-54/95 British Cement Association, established in Berkshire,          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix;
United Kingdom, represented initially by Kenneth Parker                T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos Alba SA (Hisalba), established in
QC, Robert Tudway and Doreas Rogers, Solicitors, London,               Madrid, represented by Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwält, Berlin,
subsequently solely by Kenneth Parker QC and Robert Tudway,            Luis Suaréz de Lezo Mantilla, of the Madrid Bar, with an
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt; T-55/95 Asland             Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix; T-70/95 Aker RGI ASA, established
SA, established in Barcelona, Spain, represented initially by          in Oslo, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook,
Antonio Creus Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the                 Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address
Barcelona Bar, and Antonio Hierro Hernández-Mora, of the              for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
Madrid Bar, and, subsequently, Creus Carreras, Hierro Hernán-         Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt; T-71/95 Scancem (publ)
dez-Mora and Marta Ventura Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar,              AB, formerly EUROC AB, established in Malmö, Sweden,
Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels;                 represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook, Geert
T-56/95 Castle Cement Ltd, established in Birmingham, United           Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address for
Kingdom, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook,                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Meder-
Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address           nach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt; T-87/95 Cementir — Cemente-
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,            rie del Tirreno SpA, established in Rome, represented by Gian
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt; T-57/95 Heracles General Cement                Michele Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with
Company SA, established in Athens, represented by Kostas               an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
Loukopoulos, Sotirios Felios and Irini Gortsila, of the Athens         Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Ier; T-88/95 Blue Circle Industries plc,
Bar, and Sebastian Farr and Ciaran Walker, Solicitors, with an         established in London, represented initially by Jeremy Lever
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jos               QC, Nicholas Green and Jessica Simor, Barristers, Laura
Stoffel, 8 Rue Willy Goergen; T-58/95 Corporación Uniland             Carstensen and Sarah Vaughan, Solicitors, and, subsequently,
SA, established in Barcelona, Spain, represented by Luis de            by Nicholas Green, Jessica Simor, Laura Carstensen and Marc
Carlos Bertrán and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the Barcelona            Israel, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston
Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix;            Churchill; T-103/95 Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados,
T-59/95 Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España               established in Athens, represented by Ioannis Georgakakis and
(Oficemen), established in Madrid, represented initially by            Maria Golfinopoulou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
Jaime Folguera Crespo and Ramón Vidal Puig, of the Madrid             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom Loesch, 11
Bar, subsequently solely by Folguera Crespo, with an address           Rue Goethe; and T-104/95 Tsimenta Chalkidos AE, established
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn and             in Athens, represented by Panagiotis Marinou Bernitsas, of the
Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix; T-60/95 Irish Cement Ltd,            Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
established in Dublin, represented initially by John D. Cooke,         Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v
SC, and, subsequently, by Paul Sreenan, SC, instructed by              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Gerrard, Scallan and O’Brien, Solicitors, Dublin, with an              Richard Lyal (in all the cases), Julian Currall (in Case T-26/95),
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz &           Wouter Wils (in Cases T-31/95 and T-32/95), Norbert Lorenz
Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine; T-61/95 Cimpor — Cimentos              (initially in Cases T-34/95, T-35/95, T-42/95, T-45/95,
de Portugal SA, established in Lisbon, represented by Carlos           T-46/95, T-48/95 and T-68/95), Hans Peter Hartvig (in Case
Botelho Moniz, Teresa Mendes, Amadeu Brandão Colaço and               T-44/95), Klaus Wiedner (replacing Norbert Lorenz in Cases
Adelino Duarte, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service         T-34/95, T-35/95, T-42/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95 and
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue;             T-68/95), Francisco Enrique González-Dı́az (initially in Cases
T-62/95 SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA,                   T-52/95, T-55/95, T-58/95, T-59/95 and T-69/95), Francisco
established in Outão, Setúbal, Portugal, represented by Nuno         de Sousa Fialho (in Cases T-61/95, T-62/95 and T-63/95),
Mimoso Ruiz, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in         Theofanis Christoforou (in Cases T-103/95 and T-104/95), of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue;                its Legal Service, and Rosemary Caudwell (in Cases T-53/95
T-63/95 Associação Técnica da Indústria de Cimento (ATIC),           and T-60/95), a national civil servant on secondment to the
established in Lisbon, represented by Mário João Marques             Commission, acting as Agents, assisted by Marc van der
Mendes, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in              Woude and Jean-Jo Evrard, of the Brussels Bar (in Cases
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue;                T-25/95 and T-30/95), Bertrand Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwält,
T-64/95 Titan Cement Company SA, established in Athens,                Cologne and Brussels (in Case T-34/95), Alexander Böhlke,
represented by Ian S. Forrester QC, of the Scots Bar, and              Rechtsanwält, Frankfurt am Main and Brussels (in Cases
Aristotelis N. Kaplanidis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an            T-35/95 and T-42/95), Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar (in
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom               Cases T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95 and T-43/95),
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; T-65/95 Italcementi — Fabbriche                 Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar (in Cases T-50/95,
Riunite Cemento SpA, established in Bergamo, Italy, represent-         T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), Renzo Maria Morresi, of
ed by André Faures, of the Brussels Bar, Cesare Lanciani, of the       the Bologna Bar (in Cases T-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and
Milan Bar, Alberto Predieri, of the Florence Bar, Mario Siragusa,      T-87/95), José Rivas Andrés, of the Madrid Bar (in Cases
of the Rome Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the Bologna Bar,          T-52/95, T-55/95, T-58/95, T-59/95 and T-69/95), David
and Giulio Cesare Rizza, of the Syracuse Bar, with an address          Lloyd Jones, Barrister (in Cases T-54/95 and T-88/95), Scott
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss            Crosby, Solicitor (in Cases T-56/95, T-70/95 and T-71/95),
& Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill ; T-68/95 Holderbank              and Leonard Hawkes, Solicitor (in Cases T-57/95 and T-64/95),
Financière Glarus AG, established in Jona, Switzerland, rep-           Victor Refega Fernandes, of the Lisbon Bar (in Cases T-61/95,
resented by Cornelis Canenbley and Michael Esser-Wellié,               T-62/95 and T-63/95), Rainer M. Bierwagen, of the Brussels
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.4.2000
Bar (in Case T-68/95), Mark Brealey, Barrister (in Case                  3. In Case T-26/95 Cembureau — Association Européenne du
T-88/95), and Alkiviadis Oikonomou, of the Athens Bar (in                   Ciment v Comission:
Cases T-103/95 and T-104/95), with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg — application for                   — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision                            that the applicant participated in the infringement after
94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding                          31 December 1988;
under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322
— Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                        — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi               that there were agreements on the exchange of price
and M. Jaeger, Judges; I. Maselis, Legal Secretary, for the                     information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March 2000, in which                      Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
it:                                                                             far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
                                                                                infringement after 19 March 1984;
1. Joins Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95,
    T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95,                   — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
    T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95,                       applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
    T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95,                       information between the applicant and its members related,
    T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95,                       so far as concerns Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those
    T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95,                       two countries’ producers’ minimum prices for supplies of
    T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and                            cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the
    T-104/95 for the purposes of judgment.                                      prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country’s producer;
2. In Case T-25/95 Cimenteries CBR v Commssion:                             — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                31 May 1987;
    — annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/815/EC of
        30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under
        Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322             — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
        — Cement) in so far as it finds that the applicant                      the applicant;
        participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and
        after 7 November 1988;
                                                                            — dismisses the remainder of the application;
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before          — orders each party to bear its own costs.
        9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;
                                                                         4. In Case T-30/95 Fédération de l’Industrie Cimentière Belge v
    — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                            Commission:
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        7 November 1988;
                                                                            — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                 that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement               31 December 1988;
        before 9 September 1986;
                                                                            — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — annuls Article 4(4)(g) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                 that there were agreements on the exchange of price
        concerns the applicant;                                                 information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
                                                                                Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
                                                                                far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                  infringement after 19 March 1984;
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 711 000;
                                                                            — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;                               applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
                                                                                information between Cembureau — The European Cement
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one                 Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;                          Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
                                                                                producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
                                                                                and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.                rebates, of that country’s producer;
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 122/21
   — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns            — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
       the applicant;                                                            applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
                                                                                information between Cembureau — The European Cement
   — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns                Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
       the applicant;                                                            Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
                                                                                producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
                                                                                and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
   — dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 rebates, of that country’s producer;
   — orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                             — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                                Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 617 000;
5. In Case T-31/95 Eerste Nederlandse Cementindustrie (ENCI) v
   Commission:
                                                                             — dismisses the remainder of the application;
   — annuls Articles 1, 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as
       they concern the applicant;                                           — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
   — orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
6. In Case T-32/95 Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie
   (YNC) v Commission:
                                                                          8. In Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission:
   — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       that the applicant participated in the infringement after             — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       31 December 1988;                                                         that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                7 November 1988;
   — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       that there were agreements on the exchange of price
                                                                             — annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
       information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of                 finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the
       Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so                    sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds
       far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
                                                                                that the applicant participated in an infringement of
       infringement after 19 March 1984;                                         Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) after
                                                                                12 August 1987;
   — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
       applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
       information between Cembureau — The European Cement                   — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       Association and its members related, so far as concerns the               that the applicant participated in the infringement after
       Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’                   31 May 1987;
       producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
       and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of          — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       rebates, of that country’s producer;                                      that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                7 November 1988;
   — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
       the applicant;
                                                                             — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
                                                                                finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
   — dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 before 9 September 1986;
   — orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                             — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
                                                                                the applicant;
7. In Case T-34/95 Ciments Luxembourgeois v Commission:
   — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds               — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
       that the applicant participated in the infringement after                 Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 055 000;
       31 December 1988;
                                                                             — dismisses the remainder of the application;
   — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       that there were agreements on the exchange of price                   — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
       information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of                 third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
       Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
       far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
       infringement after 19 March 1984;                                     — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.4.2000
9. In Case T-36/95 Syndicat National de l’Industrie Cimentière                — dismisses the remainder of the application;
   (SFIC) v Commission:
                                                                              — orders each party to bear its own costs.
   — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       that the applicant participated in the infringement after          10. In Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission:
       31 December 1988;
                                                                              — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement before
   — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                 11 May 1983 and after 23 April 1986;
       that there were agreements on the exchange of price
       information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
       Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so                 — annuls Article 3(1)(c) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
       far as it finds that the applicant participated in the                     finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after
       infringement after 19 March 1984;                                          23 April 1986;
                                                                              — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
   — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the                        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 2 407 000;
       applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
       information between Cembureau — The European Cement
       Association and its members related, so far as concerns the            — dismisses the remainder of the application;
       Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
       producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry              — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
       and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of               third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
       rebates, of that country’s producer;
                                                                              — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
   — annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
       finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the       11. In Case T-38/95 Groupe Origny v Commission:
       sharing of the Saarland market, a concerted practice with
       Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV before
       1984 and in a concerted practice designed to exert pressure            — annuls Articles 1, 3(3)(a) and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so
       on Cedest SA and in so far as it finds that the applicant                  far as they concern the applicant;
       participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty
       after 12 August 1987;
                                                                              — orders the Commission to pay the costs.
   — annuls Article 3(3)(b) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it            12. In Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission:
       finds the existence of a concerted practice between the
       applicant and Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindus-
                                                                              — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       trie eV designed to monitor the destination of French exports
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
       to Germany according to the land of destination and in so
                                                                                17 February 1989 and in so far as it finds that the applicant
       far as it finds that the applicant participated in an
                                                                                implemented the Cembureau agreement by participating in
       infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August
                                                                                the infringement referred to in Article 3(1)(b);
       1987;
                                                                              — annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
   — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                 finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the
       that the applicant participated in the infringement after                  sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds
       31 May 1987;                                                               that the applicant participated in an infringement of
                                                                                Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;
   — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       that the applicant participated in the infringement after                  that the applicant participated in the infringement after
       7 November 1988;                                                           31 May 1987;
   — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns             — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
       the applicant;                                                             that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                7 November 1988;
   — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns             — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
       the applicant;                                                             concerns the applicant;
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 122/23
    — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds               — annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before                finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the
        18 November 1983;                                                         sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in an infringement of
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                    Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 12 519 000;
                                                                              — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                    that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        Article 10 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 051 000;                           31 May 1987;
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                              — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one                   7 November 1988;
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.              — annuls Article 4(4)(e) and (f) of Decision 94/815 in so far
                                                                                as they concern the applicant;
13. In Case T-42/95 Heidelberger Zement v Commission:
                                                                              — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                   that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after                 18 November 1983;
        12 August 1987;
    — annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it               — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the              Article9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 14 248 000;
        sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in an infringement of
        Article 85(1) of the Treaty before 17 November 1982 and               — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        after 12 August 1987;
                                                                              — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        31 May 1987;
                                                                              — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
    — annuls Article 4(2) and (3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far
        as they concern the applicant;
                                                                          15. In Case T-44/95 Aalborg Portland v Commission:
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 056 000;
                                                                              — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 31 December 1988;
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;                        — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that there were agreements on the exchange of price
                                                                                information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.                  Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
                                                                                far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
14. In Case T-43/95 Lafarge Coppée v Commission:                                  infringement after 19 March 1984;
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds               — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
        19 May 1989;
                                                                                information between Cembureau — The European Cement
                                                                                Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
    — annuls Article 3(1)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                   Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        finds that the applicant participated in a concerted practice             producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
        with Fratelli Buzzi SpA involving the restriction of their                and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
        autonomy of conduct with regard to production sources;                    rebates, of that country’s producer;
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.4.2000
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before                 finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the
        9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;                                    sharing of the Saarland market and a concerted practice with
                                                                                the Syndicat National de l’Industrie Cimentière (SFIC) before
                                                                                1984, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated
    — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
                                                                                in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
                                                                                12 August 1987;
        before 9 September 1986;
    — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns             — annuls Article 3(3)(b) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
        the applicant;                                                             finds that there was a concerted practice between the applicant
                                                                                and Syndicat National de l’Industrie Cimentière (SFIC)
                                                                                designed to monitor the destination of French exports to
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                                Germany according to the Land of destination and in so far
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 2 349 000;
                                                                                as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement
                                                                                of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one                — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;                             that the applicant participated in the infringement before
                                                                                9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                               — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
16. In Case T-45/95 Alsen v Commission:                                            that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                7 November 1988;
    — annuls Articles 1, 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as
        they concern the applicant;                                            — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
                                                                                finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
    — orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                      before 9 September 1986;
17. In Case T-46/95 Alsen v Commission:                                        — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
                                                                                the applicant;
    — annuls Articles 1, 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as
        they concern the applicant;
                                                                               — dismisses the remainder of the application;
    — orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                               — orders each party to bear its own costs.
18. Case T-48/95 Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie v
    Commission:
                                                                           19. In Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission:
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after              — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        31 December 1988;                                                          that the applicant participated in the infringement before
                                                                                9 September 1986 and after 3 April 1992;
    — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price
                                                                               — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
                                                                                concerns the applicant;
        Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
        infringement after 19 March 1984;
                                                                               — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
                                                                                applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
    — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the                        information between Cembureau — The European Cement
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of           Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
        information between Cembureau — The European Cement                        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the                producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’                    and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry                  rebates, of that country’s producer and in so far as it finds
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of               that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        rebates, of that country’s producer;                                       9 September 1986;
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 122/25
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before                 that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;                                    13 May 1987;
    — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                   — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        concerns the applicant;                                                    Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 250 000;
    — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement                  Article 10 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 388 000;
        before 9 September 1986;
                                                                               — dismisses the remainder of the application;
    — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
        the applicant;                                                         — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 6 399 000;                         — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;                          22. In Case T-53/95 The Rugby Group v Commission:
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one                — annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(a) and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;                             far as they concern the applicant;
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.               — orders the Commission to pay the costs.
20. In Case T-51/95 Fratelli Buzzi v Commission:                           23. In Case T-54/95 British Cement Association v Commission:
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns             — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        the applicant;                                                             that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                31 December 1988;
    — annuls Article 3(1)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
        finds that the applicant participated in a concerted practice          — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        with Lafarge Coppée SA involving the restriction of their                  that there were agreements on the exchange of price
        autonomy of conduct with regard to production sources;                     information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
                                                                                Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
                                                                                far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
    — annuls Article 3(1)(c) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                    infringement after 19 March 1984;
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        23 April 1986;
                                                                               — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
                                                                                applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
    — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns                 information between Cembureau — The European Cement
        the applicant;                                                             Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
                                                                                Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
                                                                                producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;                                  and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
                                                                                rebates, of that country’s producer;
    — orders the applicant to bear one third of its own costs;
                                                                               — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
    — orders the Commission to bear its own costs and two thirds                   the applicant;
        of the costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                               — dismisses the remainder of the application;
21. In Case T-52/95 Compañi a Valenciana de Cementos Portland
    v Comission:                                                               — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission;
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after              — orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own
        13 May 1987;                                                               costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.4.2000
24. In Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission:                                      — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                                Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 592 000;
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before            — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        28 May 1986 and after 31 May 1987;
                                                                              — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        31 May 1987;
                                                                              — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
    — annuls Article 4(2) and (3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far
        as they concern the applicant;                                    28. In Case T-59/95 Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de
                                                                              España (Oficemen) v Commission:
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 740 000;                          — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                24 April 1989;
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                              — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one                   concerns the applicant;
        quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                              — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
    — orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own                     applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
        costs.                                                                    information between Cembureau — The European Cement
                                                                                Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
25. In Case T-56/95 Castle Cement v Commission:                                   Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
                                                                                producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
                                                                                and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
    — annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(a), 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in
                                                                                rebates, of that country’s producer;
        so far as they concern the applicant;
    — orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                 — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement before
                                                                                9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;
26. In Case T-57/95 Heracles Genera1 Cement Company v Com-
    mission:
                                                                              — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
    — annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(d), (f) and (9), 6 and 9 of Decision                7 November 1988;
        94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;
                                                                              — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
    — orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                     finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
                                                                                before 9 September 1986;
27. In Case T-58/95 Corporación Uniland v Commission:
                                                                              — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                   the applicant;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        9 September 1986 and after 7 November 1988;                           — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
                                                                                the applicant;
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before            — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;
                                                                              — orders each party to bear its own costs.
    — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        9 September 1986 and after 7 November 1988;                       29. In Case T-60/95 Irish Cement v Commission:
    — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it               — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement                 that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        before 9 September 1986;                                                  31 December 1988;
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 122/27
    — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds         31. In Case T-62/95 SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price                    v Commission:
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
        Ceinbureau — The European Cement Association, and in so                — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the                     that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        infringement after 19 March 1984;                                          24 April 1989;
    — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the                    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of           Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 395 000;
        information between Ceinbureau — The European Cement
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the            — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry              — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of               third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
        rebates, of that country’s producer;
                                                                               — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before         32. In Case T-63/95 Associação Técnica da Indústria de Cimento
        9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;                                (ATIC) v Commission:
    — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it                — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement                  that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        before 9 September 1986;                                                   31 December 1988;
                                                                               — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
    — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns                 concerns the applicant;
        the applicant;
                                                                               — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                     applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 2 065 000;                             information between Cembureau — The European Cement
                                                                                Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
                                                                                Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;                                  producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
                                                                                and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
                                                                                rebates, of that country’s producer;
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;                         — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
                                                                                the applicant;
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                               — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
                                                                                the applicant;
30. In Case T-61/95 Cimpor — Cimentos de Portugal v Com-
    mission:                                                                   — dismisses the remainder of the application;
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                — orders each party to bear its own costs.
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        24 April 1989;                                                     33. In Case T-64/95 Titan Cement Company v Commission:
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                 — annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(b), (c), (e), (g) and (h), 6 and 9 of
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 4 312 000;                             Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;
                                                                               — orders the Commission to pay the costs.
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           34. In Case T-65/95 Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite Cemento v
                                                                               Commission:
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                               — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement before
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.                   19 March 1984 and after 3 April 1992;
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/28                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.4.2000
    — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price                        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 918 000;
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
        Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so                 — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
        infringement before 19 March 1984 and after that date;
                                                                               — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
    — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
        information between Cembureau — The European Cement                    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’            36. In Case T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos Alba (Hisalba) v Commission:
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of
                                                                               — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        rebates, of that country’s producer, and in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
                                                                                19 May 1989;
        19 March 1984;
                                                                               — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                 Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 836 000;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        31 May 1987;
                                                                               — dismisses the remainder of the application;
    — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after                  third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
        7 November 1988;
                                                                               — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
    — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
        the applicant;
                                                                           37. In Case T-70/95 Aker RGI ASA v Commission:
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                 — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 25 701 000;                            that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                7 November 1988;
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                               — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement before
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one                    9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                               — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.                   that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                7 November 1988;
35. In Case T-68/95 Holderbank Financière Glarus v Commission:
                                                                               — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
                                                                                finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                    before 9 September 1986;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        7 November 1988;                                                       — annuls Article 4(4)(h) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
                                                                                concerns the applicant;
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after              — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        31 May 1987;                                                               Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 14 000;
    — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        7 November 1988;                                                       — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
    — annuls Article 4(4)(c) and (d) of Decision 94/815 in so far
        as they concern the applicant;                                         — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/29
38. In Case T-71/95 Scancem (publ) v Commission:                               — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
                                                                                finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
                                                                                before 9 September 1986;
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        7 November 1988;                                                       — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns
                                                                                the applicant;
    — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before             — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;                                         Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 471 000;
    — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        7 November 1988;
                                                                               — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
    — annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it
        finds that the applicant participated in the infringement
        before 9 September 1986;                                               — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
    — annuls Article 4(4)(h) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it            40. In Case T-88/95 Blue Circle Industries v Commission:
        concerns the applicant;
                                                                               — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                     that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 14 000;                                18 November 1983 and after 7 November 1988;
    — dismisses the remainder of the application;                              — annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
                                                                                31 May 1987;
    — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                               — annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
                                                                                that the applicant participated in the infringement after
    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.                   7 November 1988;
39. In Case T-87/95 Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno v                        — annuls Article 4(4)(a) and (b) of Decision 94/815 in so far
    Commission:                                                                    as they concern the applicant;
    — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds                — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement after                  that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        3 April 1992;                                                              18 November 1983;
    — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds             — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price                        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 717 000;
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of
        Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the                 — dismisses the remainder of the application;
        infringement after 14 January 1983;
                                                                               — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one
    — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the                        third of the costs incurred by the Commission;
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of
        information between Cembureau — The European Cement                    — orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry          41. In Case T-103/95 Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados v
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of           Commission:
        rebates, of that country’s producer;
                                                                               — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
    — annuls Article 4(1) and (2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as                  that the applicant participated in the infringement after
        they concern the applicant;                                                31 December 1988;
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
     — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of                                  of 9 March 2000
        Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
                                                                           in Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros v Commission of the
        infringement after 19 March 1984;
                                                                                European Communities (1)
     — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the               (Officials — Classification in grade — Professional experi-
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of                                   ence)
        information between Cembureau — The European Cement
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the                                (2000/C 122/40)
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of                          (Language of the case: French)
        rebates, of that country’s producer;
                                                                           In Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros, an official of the Commission
     — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns        of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
        the applicant;                                                     by M.-A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
     — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns        J. Currall and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for annul-
        the applicant;                                                     ment of the Commission decision of 15 March 1996 determin-
                                                                           ing the applicant’s definitive classification in Grade A 7 and
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 November
     — dismisses the remainder of the application;                         1996 dismissing the applicant’s administrative complaint —
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of
                                                                           B. Vesterdorf, ruling as a single judge; H. Jung, Registrar, has
     — orders each party to bear its own costs.                            given a judgment on 9 March 2000, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
42. In Case T-104/95 Tsimenta Chalkidos v Commission:                      1. The application is dismissed;
     — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds           2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;                       (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
     — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;
     — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 510 000;
                                                                                of 23 February 2000
     — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman
                                                                             and Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v European Parliament (1)
     — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
        of the costs incurred by the Commission;                           (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Auxiliary interpreters
                                                                           employed for the sessions of the Parliament — Lawfulness
                                                                           of the deduction of Community tax from their remuneration)
     — orders the Commission to bear one half of its own costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/41)
(1) OJ C 101 of 22.4.1995, C 119 of 13.5.1995, C 137 of 3.6.1995                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
    and C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman and
                                                                           Petra Van Eynde-Neutens, conference interpreters respectively
                                                                           residing in Zurich (Switzerland) and in Brussels, represented
                                                                           by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before


title: Case T-8/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/39

         Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)
   (Case T-8/17)
   (2017/C 063/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ — Application for registration No 6 036 503

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2016 in Case R 1962/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-217/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA
   (Case C-217/05)
   (2005/C 193/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) of 3 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio and Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA on the following questions:
   Must Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 (1) of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty [now Article 81 EC] to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements be construed as meaning that they include within their scope contracts for the exclusive distribution of motor-vehicle and other fuels which are nominally classified as commission or agency contracts and which contain the following clauses?

               (A)

               The service-station proprietor undertakes to sell the supplier's motor-vehicle and other fuels in accordance with the retail prices, conditions, and sales and business methods stipulated by the supplier.

               (B)

               The service-station proprietor assumes the risk associated with the products as soon as he receives them from the supplier in the storage tanks at the service station.

               (C)

               Once he has received the products, the proprietor assumes the obligation to keep the products in the conditions necessary to ensure that they undergo no loss or deterioration and is liable, where applicable, both to the supplier and to third parties for any loss, contamination or adulteration which may affect the products and for any damage arising as a result thereof.

               (D)

               The service-station proprietor is required to pay the supplier the cost of the motor-vehicle and other fuels nine (9) days after the date of their delivery to the service station.

      (1)  OJ L 173 of 30.6.1983 ; EE 08/02, p. 114.


title: Case C-206/14: Action brought on 24 April 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/19

         Action brought on 24 April 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-206/14)
   2014/C 212/21
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose Article 4(1)(e), the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) and the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, (2) the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The application seeks a declaration that the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, by failing altogether and/or properly to adopt the legal provisions necessary for transposing the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26.

      (2)  OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.


title: Case C-657/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers, Visys NV (Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC — Misleading and comparative advertising — Definition of ‘advertising’ — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers, Visys NV
   (Case C-657/11) (1)

   (Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC - Misleading and comparative advertising - Definition of ‘advertising’ - Registration and use of a domain name - Use of metatags in a website’s metadata)
   2013/C 252/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV

      Defendants: Bert Peelaers, Visys NV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), and Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Definition of advertising — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 and Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘advertising’, as defined by those provisions, covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the use of a domain name and that of metatags in a website’s metadata. By contrast, the registration of a domain name, as such, is not encompassed by that term.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case T-276/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Edison v OHIM — Eolus Vind (e)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/48

         Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Edison v OHIM — Eolus Vind (e)
   (Case T-276/15)
   (2015/C 236/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Martucci, F. Boscariol de Roberto and I. Gatto, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eolus Vind AB (publ) (Hässleholm, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the letter ‘e’ — Application for registration No 10 420 941

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2015 in Case R 2358/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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