title: Case C-422/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case ISIS Multimedia GmbH & Co. KG against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case ISIS Multimedia GmbH & Co. KG against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-422/04)
   (2004/C 284/25)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 7 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ISIS Multimedia GmbH & Co. KG against the Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (the licensing directive) to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a licence fee calculated to anticipate the amount of a national regulatory authority's general administrative costs over a period of 30 years, to be charged in advance?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

               2.

               Are Article 10 EC and Article 11 of the licensing directive to be interpreted as meaning that a fee assessment that determines fees within the meaning of Question 1 and which has not been contested although such a possibility is afforded under national law must be set aside where that is permissible under national law but not mandatory?

      (1)  OJ L 117, p. 15.


title: Case T-377/00: Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Philip Morris International Inc., against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.3.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Philip Morris
                                                                         International Inc., against the Commission of the Euro-
The applicant, a privately held company incorporated under                                       pean Communities
the Belgian laws, processes parboiled and non-parboiled brown
rice into various milled rice products. During the period from                                    (Case T-377/00)
1 July 1997 through 31 December 1998, it imported brown
rice purchased from a related U.S. company, Uncle Ben’s Inc.,                                      (2001/C 79/41)
in Belgium, under a Community customs duty regime known
as the Cumulative Recovery System (CRS).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
By its present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the
Commission decision addressed to the Director General of the
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Belgian customs administration (‘BCA’), and contained in the
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
letter of Directorate General Budget (‘DG Budget’) dated
                                                                         European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Philip
29 September 2000 (Document no BUDG/B/03/D(00)/38549)
                                                                         Morris International Inc., a company established under the
(the contested decision).
                                                                         laws of Delaware (USA), represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery
                                                                         and Jacques Derenne, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff,
The contested decision communicates to the BCA the final                 Brussels.
position of the Commission with regard to the determination
and settlement of the definitive amount of customs duties due
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
by the applicant under the CRS. Specifically, the decision,
basing itself explicitly on the findings of report no 98.6.073 of
                                                                         —     annul the Commission Decision to bring the action filed
the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’),
                                                                               on 3 November 2000 before the New York District
                                                                               Court against the applicant, as publicly announced by
—     rejects the import prices that had been declared by the                  Commissioner Michaele Schreyer in Press Release
      applicant under the CRS and previously accepted by the                   IP/00/1255 of 6 November 2000
      BCA,
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
—     directs the BCA to determine the CRS import prices of
      the applicant, and the definitive amount of import duties
      due by the applicant under the CRS, in accordance with
      the detailed calculations of the OLAF report, and                  Pleas in law and main arguments
—     directs the BCA to recover the net amount of CRS import            The applicant is, through its affiliates and subsidiaries, engaged
      duties which are allegedly due by the applicant according          in the sale of tobacco products outside the United States.
      to the detailed calculations of the OLAF report, but had           According to the applicant, the European Community has filed
      been previously reimbursed to the applicant by the BCA.            an action in a United States court against the applicant to
                                                                         recover inter alia, in the form of damages, customs and duties
                                                                         and value-added tax related to alleged smuggling. The applicant
The applicant brings forward three grounds for annulment of
                                                                         challenges the decision to take legal proceedings announced
the contested decision. It alleges that the Commission:
                                                                         by the Commission in the above-mentioned press release.
—     has committed a manifest error of assessment in the
      application of the CRS Regulation (1);                             The applicant submits that the European Community (rep-
                                                                         resented by the Commission) lacks competence to bring an
—     has infringed fundamental principles of law forming part           action before a United States court, and that it has acted
      of the Community legal order, such as the rights of                outside the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the EC
      defence and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary             Treaty, as it is only the Member States which have competence
      action; and                                                        to seek allegedly unpaid customs and duties taxes.
—     has infringed an essential procedural requirement under            In the alternative, the applicant submits that even if the
      both Regulation 2185/96 and Regulation 1073/00 with                European Community were competent to bring the action, the
      regard to the OLAF report which is the foundation of the           Community has infringed essential procedural requirements of
      decision.                                                          Article 280 EC and lacks financial and legal interest in bringing
                                                                         an action on its own behalf as well as competence to bring an
                                                                         action on behalf of the Member States.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) 703/97 of 18 April 1997 introdu-
    cing for a trial period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1997 a
    cumulative recovery system for determining certain import duties     Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contested decision
    on rice and amending Rebulation (EC) No 1503/96 (OJ L 104,           infringes general Community principles and constitutes a
    p. 12).                                                              misuse of powers.


title: Case C-16/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords) — The Queen, Veli Tum, Mehmet Dari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Association between the EEC and Turkey — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol — Standstill clause — Scope — National legislation introducing, after the entry into force of the Additional Protocol, new restrictions regarding the conditions of and procedures for entry into the territory of the Member State concerned)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords) — The Queen, Veli Tum, Mehmet Dari v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-16/05) (1)

   (Association between the EEC and Turkey - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol - ‘Standstill’ clause - Scope - National legislation introducing, after the entry into force of the Additional Protocol, new restrictions regarding the conditions of and procedures for entry into the territory of the Member State concerned)
   (2007/C 269/09)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, Veli Tum, Mehmet Dari,

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and on measures to be taken for their entry into force (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 60) — Whether a Member State may introduce new restrictions on entry for Turkish nationals seeking to establish themselves in business in that State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, which was signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, is to be interpreted as prohibiting the introduction, as from the entry into force of that protocol with regard to the Member State concerned, of any new restrictions on the exercise of freedom of establishment, including those relating to the substantive and/or procedural conditions governing the first admission into the territory of that State, of Turkish nationals intending to establish themselves in business there on their own account.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case F-78/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014  — de Loecker v EEAS (Civil servants — EEAS staff — Temporary agent — Head of delegation in a third country — Early cessation of the functions of head of delegation — Transfer to EEAS headquarters — Rights of the defence — Interest of the service — Reasons)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — de Loecker v EEAS
   (Case F-78/13) (1)

   ((Civil servants - EEAS staff - Temporary agent - Head of delegation in a third country - Early cessation of the functions of head of delegation - Transfer to EEAS headquarters - Rights of the defence - Interest of the service - Reasons))
   (2015/C 007/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stéphane de Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers, subsequently J.-N. Louis)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant from the EEAS office in Burundi to its headquarters in Brussels.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr De Loecker to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European External Action Service.

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013, p. 7.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-7/04 Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker — Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2005
   in Case T-7/04 Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker - Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 205/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-7/04: Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas, established in Vietri sul Mare (Italy), represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (agent: M. Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Limiñana y Botella, SL, established in Monforte del Cid (Spain), action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/ 2002-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/2002-2) and alters it so that the appeal brought before OHIM by the applicant is well founded and consequently the opposition must be rejected;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-206/05: Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/35

         Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-206/05)
   (2005/C 193/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani, residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 7 March 2005 and the resulting measures concerning the applicant's remuneration;

               —

               take all necessary measures to safeguard the applicant's rights and interests, in particular as regards the minimum subsistence amount which he should be granted in terms of remuneration;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages in the sum of EUR 10 002;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, took leave on personal grounds until 31 August 2004. Having made a request to return to work at the end of his leave, he was reinstated in DG RELEX by decision of 28 September 2004. However, it was not specified to which precise position he would be assigned, that decision providing that he would be informed of that at a later stage.
   By note of 7 March 2005, the administration informed the applicant that he had been absent without leave since 5 October 2004 and that the appropriate measures would be taken against him. He did not receive his salary for April and his pay slip stated that he owed the Commission the amount he had received by way of salary from October 2004.
   By his action, the applicant contests the note of 7 March 2005 and the resulting measures. He pleads infringement of the rights of the defence, claiming that he was not able to defend his interests before the contested decisions were adopted. He also pleads infringement of the obligation to state reasons and that manifest errors of assessment were made. More particularly, he maintains that that he was never informed that he had been assigned to the unit RELEX/C.1. He further contests the claim that he did not respond to an offer of employment.
   The applicant then pleads infringement of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, which, in his view, allows him to turn down the first offer of employment. He also pleads infringement of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, on the ground that his alleged absence was not duly established and was not initially deducted from his annual leave. The applicant further claims that Annexes VIII and IX to the Staff Regulations ensuring that he is paid the minimum subsistence amount were infringed. Finally, he pleads infringement of the principles of sound administration and the duty to have regard to the interests of officials.
   In addition to the annulment of the contested measures, the applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damages which he allegedly suffered.


title: Case F-28/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Member of the temporary staff — Head of delegation in a third country — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Transfer to the EEAS seat — Early termination of the employment contract — Period of notice — Reasons given for the decision — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS
   (Case F-28/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - EEAS staff - Member of the temporary staff - Head of delegation in a third country - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Transfer to the EEAS seat - Early termination of the employment contract - Period of notice - Reasons given for the decision - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard))
   (2015/C 346/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu de Caldas, lawyers, and subsequently J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the High Representative of the European Union to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff, to refuse to hear him in respect of alleged psychological harassment, to reject his request for the appointment of an external investigator and to have his complaint registered as a request.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr De Loecker shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay all the costs incurred by the European External Action Service.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 44.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2000 in Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Absence of staff report — Irregularity in the promotion procedure)

text:
29.4.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 122/31
the Netherlands Hoge Raad and of the Brussels Bar, with an                2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May, 31 Grand-Rue, v European Parliament (Agents: Manfred
Peter, João Sant’Anna, Francis Herbert and Dirk Arts) —                  (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
application for reimbursement of the Community tax deducted
from the applicants’ remuneration (Cases T-223/97 and
T-17/98) and, by way of subsidiary relief, for compensation
for the damage flowing from the double taxation of that
remuneration (Case T-17/98) — the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, and
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 February 2000,
in which it:
                                                                                of 22 February 2000
1. Dismisses the applications for annulment in Cases T-223/97
     and T-17/98;                                                         in Case T-138/98 Armement Coopératif Artisanal Ven-
                                                                          déen (ACAV) and Others v Council of the European
2. Dismisses the application for compensation in Case T-17/98;                                        Union (1)
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                            (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 — Prohibition of
                                                                              drift-nets — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997 and OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                              (2000/C 122/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-138/98: Armement Coopératif Artisanal Vendéen
                                                                          (ACAV), established in Sables-d’Olonne (France), and Arme-
                                                                          ment Alain André and ACAV, Armement Thierry Arnaud
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and ACAV, Armement Alain Augereau, Armement Jean-Luc
                                                                          Bernard et Angélique Bernard, Armement Pascal Burgaud,
                      of 24 February 2000                                 Armement José Burgaud and ACAV, Armement Bruno Chiron
                                                                          et Jean Noury, Fabien Gaillard, Armement Bruno Girard,
                                                                          Armement Bruno Girard and ACAV, Armement Denis Grois-
in Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs v Commission of the
                                                                          ard, Fabrice Groisard, Armement Islais SARL, Armement Marc
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          Jolivet, Armement Yannick Orsonneau and ACAV, Armement
                                                                          Christian Rafin and ACAV, Armement Éric Rivalin and ACAV,
(Officials — Promotion — Absence of staff report —                        Armement Eric Taraud and ACAV, Armement Fernand Voisin
            Irregularity in the promotion procedure)                      et Alain Voisin, Patrick Voisin, Yeu Pêcheries SA, Armement
                                                                          Bernard Zereg, established in Ile-d’Yeu (France), represented by
                         (2000/C 122/42)                                  L. Funck-Brentano and S. Ponsot, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Neuen,
                                                                          1 Place du Théâtre, supported by the French Republic (Agents:
                                                                          J.-F. Dobelle, C. Vasak and K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavan-
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          ce), by the Commune de l’Ile-d’Yeu, represented by R. Houssin,
                                                                          of the Nantes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs, an official of the Commission of           at the Chambers of J. Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre, by Ireland
the European Communities, resident in Walshoutem, Belgium,                (Agents M.A. Buckley and A. Collins) and by Thomas Kennedy,
represented by J.-N. Louis and F. Parmentier of the Brussels Bar          John Graham, John Flannery, Michael Hennessy and Padraig Ó
and F. Giuffrida of the Turin Bar, with an address for service in         Mathuna, residing in Dingle (Ireland), Vincent Browne, Michael
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson S.à.r.l., 30                Murphy, John O’Donnel, residing in Tralee (Ireland), Donal
Rue de Cessange, against the Commission of the European                   O’Neill, John D. Sullivan, Niel Minihane, Kieran O’Driscoll,
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Peter Carleton, Donal Healy, residing in Castletownbere (Ire-
Clotuche) — application for the annulment of the Com-                     land), Gerard Minihane, residing in Skibbereen (Ireland), rep-
mission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B 4              resented by D. O’Donnell, SC, J. Devlin, Barrister, G. Casey,
in the 1997 promotion year — the Court of First Instance                  Solicitor, and P. McDermott, Barrister, North Main Street,
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the                Bandon, County Cork (Ireland) v Council of the European
Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,            Union (Agents J. Carbery and L. Railas), supported by the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by the
24 February 2000, in which it:                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Ber-
                                                                          scheid and T. van Rijn) — application for annulment of
1. annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant          Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998
     to Grade B 4 in the 1997 promotion year;                             amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain


title: Case C-598/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 22 November 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Polixeni Guletsou

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 22 November 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Polixeni Guletsou
   (Case C-598/13)
   2014/C 24/21
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani

      Defendant: Polixeni Guletsou

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which those States agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one State to nationals of the other State who had been political refugees in the territory of the first State and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second State, in exchange for a payment by the first State of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: Case C-21/05: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of  15 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/23

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 15 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-21/05) (1)

   (2006/C 165/44)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2000 in Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Coordination of structural instruments — Internal Commission guidelines — Net financial corrections)

text:
C 192/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
the proceedings being: Solvay SA, established in Brussels,                 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of
Belgium, represented by L. Simont, Advocate at the Belgian                 20 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20) — the Court (Sixth
Court of Cassation, by P.-A. Foriers and G. Block, of the                  Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe — the Court                      Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President            Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                judgment on 6 April 2000, in which it:
Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wa-
thelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                 1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 April 2000, in which it:                                                 2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;
1. Dismisses the appeals;                                                  3. Orders the Italian Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear
                                                                               their own costs.
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
     costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 286 of 28.10.1995.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             of 6 April 2000
                          of 6 April 2000                                  in Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
                                                                                and of wild fauna and flora)
(Coordination of structural instruments — Internal Com-
        mission guidelines — Net financial corrections)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/04)
                          (2000/C 192/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
In Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva                Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                  cation for a declaration that, by not adopting all the laws,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy,                  regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply
4-6 Boulevard E. Servais, supported by Italian Republic (Agent:            with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis), and Portuguese Republic,             conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(Agents: L. Fernandes and J. Viegas Ribeiro) v Commission                  (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), in that it has omitted to take the
of the European Communities (Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos and                   measures necessary to comply with Article 6 thereof, the
P. Oliver) — application for the annulment of the Com-                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
mission’s internal guidelines of 15 October 1997 concerning                Directive and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
net financial corrections in the context of the application                EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 249 EC) — the
of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of                    Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President
19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing                   of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rap-
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the                 porteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for
and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 2000, in which
the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1),            it:


title: Case T-186/17: Action brought on 23 March 2017 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/34

         Action brought on 23 March 2017 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)
   (Case T-186/17)
   (2017/C 161/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Unipreus, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallapop, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘wallapop’ — Application for registration No 13 268 941

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 in the Cases R 2350/2015-5 and R 2530/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Deliver a judgment amending the contested decision by rejecting the registration of the European Union mark ‘wallapop’ (No 13 268 941) for the following services in Class 35: ‘Online trading, namely operation of online markets for buyers and sellers of goods and services; online trading services in which sellers post products or services to be offered for sale and purchasing or bidding is done via the Internet in order to facilitate the sale of goods and services by others via a computer network; providing evaluative feedback and ratings of sellers’ goods and services, the value and prices of sellers’ goods and services, buyers’ and sellers’ performance, delivery, and overall trading experience in connection therewith; Providing a searchable online advertising guide featuring the goods and services of online vendors; Providing a searchable online evaluation database for buyers and sellers; Market research services; Research, providing of reports, consultancy and advice relating to market behaviour; Providing of business information relating to goods and/or services, and evaluation and classification of the aforesaid goods and services, and of the purchasers and sellers of the aforesaid goods and/or services; Seeking, compilation, systemisation, processing and providing of business information for others’.

               —

               Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 Regulation No 207/2009. In particular, it is stated in that regard that, in its decision, the Board of Appeal did not correctly interpret that provision in relation to the conflicting services in the WALA and WALLAPOP trademarks, in the light of the interpretative criteria arising from the judgment of 29 September 1998 in Case C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (EU:C:1998:442).


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/12

         Removal from the register of Case C-472/04 (1)

   (2005/C 330/27)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 7 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-472/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-227/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2008 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2008 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-227/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Person not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 44/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: B. Conway, Barrister, and S. Daly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2006 of 16 June 2006 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 165, p. 6).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               RSA Security Ireland Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-175/13: Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/28

         Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
   (Case T-175/13)
   2013/C 147/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Omega SA (Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Omega Engineering, Inc. (Stamford, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2013 in Joined Cases R 2055/2011-1 and R 2186/2011-1 and grant protection for the trade mark concerned in respect of all of the goods requested;

               —

               order OHIM and Omega Engineering, Inc. to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Omega SA

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration, designating the European Union, of the figurative mark with word element ‘Ω OMEGA’ for goods in Class 9 — international registration No 997 036 designating the European Union

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Omega Engineering, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘OMEGA’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and protection applied for refused in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal and more extensive partial refusal of the protection applied for

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-579/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — P, S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) — National legislation imposing on third-country nationals with long-term resident status a civic integration obligation, attested by an examination, under pain of a fine)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — P, S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen
   (Case C-579/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) - National legislation imposing on third-country nationals with long-term resident status a civic integration obligation, attested by an examination, under pain of a fine))
   (2015/C 236/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: P, S

      Defendants: Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents and, in particular, Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) thereof do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on third-country nationals who already possess long-term resident status the obligation to pass a civic integration examination, under pain of a fine, provided that the means of implementing that obligation are not liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by that directive, which it is for the referring court to determine. Whether the long-term resident status was acquired before or after the obligation to pass a civic integration examination was imposed is irrelevant in that respect.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case F-93/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — D'Agostino v Commission (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Article 3a of the CEOS — Non-renewal of a contract — Duty of care — Interests of the service — Full and detailed examination within all departments of the possibility of employment corresponding to the tasks envisaged in the contract)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — D'Agostino v Commission
   (Case F-93/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Article 3a of the CEOS - Non-renewal of a contract - Duty of care - Interests of the service - Full and detailed examination within all departments of the possibility of employment corresponding to the tasks envisaged in the contract)
   2013/C 352/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi D’Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to renew Mr D’Agostino’s contract;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr D’Agostino;

               4.

               Orders Mr D’Agostino to bear two thirds of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012, p. 23.


title: Case T-218/14: Action brought on 8 April 2014 — Mabrouk v Council

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/29

         Action brought on 8 April 2014 — Mabrouk v Council
   (Case T-218/14)
   2014/C 194/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Bel Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Carthage, Tunisia) (represented by: J. Farthouat, J. Mignard, N. Boulay, lawyers, and S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 20 11/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, p. 38) and Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, p. 2), insofar as they apply to the applicant, these restrictive measures being the freezing of assets in the EU; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested acts the defendant is assisting a criminal investigation in Tunisia and is thus acting in a judicial capacity in a criminal law context and that the legal bases relied on by the defendant, Article 29 TEU and Article 215(2) TFEU, do not confer on the defendant the competence to act in this manner.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts were adopted to assist the judicial authorities in Tunisia and not for the reasons stated in support of the legal bases chosen and that consequently the legal basis have been infringed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging (a) a manifest error of assessment that there is a link between the applicant's assets in the EU and the subject of the judicial investigation in Tunisia, (b) a manifest error of assessment in claiming that the operative parts of the contested acts justify the retention of the Applicant's name on the list of persons whose assets are to be frozen, and (c) a manifest error in the assessment of the factual basis on which the defendant purports to justify the contested acts.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant's defence and fundamental rights, namely: the presumption of innocence, the right to see the evidence upon which the defendant relies against the applicant, the right to be heard, the right to equality of arms, the right to an effective remedy, the principle of proportionality and the right to property.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning.


title: Case T-317/07: Action brought on 27 August 2007 — Commission v B2Test

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/50

         Action brought on 27 August 2007 — Commission v B2Test
   (Case T-317/07)
   (2007/C 269/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero, agent, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Defendant: B2Test (Gardanne, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               order B2Test to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 110,72, corresponding to the principal sum owed of EUR 43 437,94 and the sum of EUR 6 672,78 owed by way of default interest, due as of 23 December 2004;

               —

               order B2Test to pay interest amounting to EUR 8,03 per day at the same rate with effect from 24 December 2004 until the entire amount due has been paid in full;

               —

               order B2Test to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests that the defendant be ordered to repay the advance paid by the Community, together with default interest, as a result of the non-performance of Contract No BRST-CT-98-5452, concluded in the context of a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994-1998) (1) and concerning the project ‘Research and development of a new safety flooring based on recycled plastic and rubber materials for an environmental and economic added value’.
   Under the contract, the defendant was required regularly to submit to the Commission the scientific and financial documents referred to in the contract. According to the applicant, only part of the documents required under the contract were forwarded by the defendant almost three years after the dates laid down in the contract. The final report on the project was never forwarded. The applicant therefore submits that the defendant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and is required to repay to the Commission the advances which it initially paid to the defendant.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 222, p. 19.


title: Case C-125/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.) v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Intellectual and industrial property — Patents — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Article 13 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Possibility of granting that certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of the lodging of the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years — Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 — Article 36 — Extension of the duration of the supplementary protection certificate)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.) v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-125/10) (1)

   (Intellectual and industrial property - Patents - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Article 13 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Possibility of granting that certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of the lodging of the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years - Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 - Article 36 - Extension of the duration of the supplementary protection certificate)
   2012/C 32/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., formerly Merck & Co. Inc.

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Possibility of granting the certificate if the period of time between the filing of the application for the basic patent and the date of first authorisation for marketing in the Community is shorter than five years

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 36 of Regulation No 1901/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that medicinal products can be the object of the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of lodging the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years. In such a case, the period of the paediatric extension provided for by the latter regulation starts to run from the date determined by deducting from the patent expiry date the difference between five years and the duration of the period which elapsed between the lodging of the patent application and the grant of the first marketing authorisation.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-269/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Rautaruukki v OHIM — (RAUTARUUKKI) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark RAUTARUUKKI — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Descriptive character — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Evidence offered in support)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Rautaruukki v OHIM — (RAUTARUUKKI)
   (Case T-269/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark RAUTARUUKKI - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Descriptive character - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Evidence offered in support)
   (2009/C 6/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rautaruukki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen, Agent)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2006 (Case R 48/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word mark RAUTARUUKKI as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rautaruukki Oyj to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Appeal brought on 16 October 1995 by Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International), Domingo Viera González, Pablo Guedes García, José Ignacio Trojaola Chávez, Aurora González González, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sánchez Artiles, José Juan Melián Melián, Carmen Guadalupe Gómez Castro, Clara Donate Hernández, Balbina Martín Espínola, José Hernández Morín, Germán Peña Hernández, Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentín Hernández Vaquero, Peter Reinhard, Julio González Domínguez, Tagorar Ecologista Alternativo and Comisíon Canaria contra la Contaminácion against the order made on 9 August 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-585/93 between Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) and 18 others and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-321/95 P)

text:
No C 315/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25 . 11 . 95
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under               IV . Where the infringement referred to in III above consists
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in                      in the submission of samples with a view to the
directives for their transposition. In the case of Directives                   registration of a medicinal product, as referred to in I
93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC and 93/61 /EEC, the periods                                above, and in consequence thereof a judicial
prescribed expired on 31 December 1993 , in respect of                          prohibition of the kind referred to in III above is
Directive 93/52/EEC, on 1 January 1994 and, in the case of                      imposed for a period which exceeds the maximum
Directive 93/85/EEC, on 15 November 1993 ; in each case ,                       period prescribed by Directives 65/65/EEC ( j ) and
the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions                         75/319/EEC ( 2) for the registration of medicinal
necessary to comply with the Directive in question by the                       products, does the fact that the duration of the
required date .                                                                 prohibition exceeds that maximum render the
                                                                                prohibition incompatible to that extent with
(1)  OJ No  L  250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    Community law and, if so, does that mean that the
(2)  OJ No  L  250,  7 . 10, 1993 , p . 9 .                                     person on whom the prohibition is imposed can invoke
(■') OJ No  L  175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                   that incompatibility, by virtue of Community law, as
(4)  OJ No  L  250,  7. 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
(s)  OJ No  L  259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                against the former proprietor of the patent ?
                                                                         (') OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, p . 13 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 29 September
1995 in the case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French
                        Laboratories Limited                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                                                                         Social No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court
                           ( Case C-3 16/95 )                            of 21 September 1995 in the case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v.
                             ( 95/C 315 /23 )                            Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                                Seguridad Social
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-320/95 )
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                                  ( 95/C 315/24 )
29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 5 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories                 European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo
Limited on the following questions :                                     Social ( Social Court ) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of
                                                                         21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   I. Does a rule of national law which confers on the                   Registry on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
      proprietor of a patent in respect of certain medicinal             case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
      products the right to oppose, during the currency of               and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social on three
      that patent, the submission by another person of                   questions, which are identical to those referred in Case
      samples of the patented medicinal products ( or of                 C-88/95 ( OJ No C 137 of 3 June 1995 , p. 12 ).
      medicinal products produced in accordance with the
      patented process ) to the authority responsible for the
      registration of medicinal products, have to be regarded
      as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative
      restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30            Appeal brought on 16 October 1995 by Stichting
      of the EC Treaty ?                                                 Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ), Domingo
                                                                         Viera González, Pablo Guedes García, José Ignacio Trojaola
 II . If so, is that measure covered by the exception laid               Chávez, Aurora González González, Pedro Melián Castro,
      down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty in respect of                  Caridad Sánchez Artiles, José Juan Melián Melián, Carmen
      restrictions which are justified on the ground of the              Guadalupe Gómez Castro, Clara Donate Hernández,
      protection of industrial property ?                                Balbina Martín Espinóla, José Hernández Morín, Germán
                                                                         Peña Hernández, Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentín
III. Where, during the currency of a patent, an                          Hernández Vaquero, Peter Reinhard, Julio González
      infringement of that patent is committed under                     Domínguez, Tagorar Ecologista Alternativo and Comisíon
      national law and the person committing that                        Canaria contra la Contaminácion against the order made on
      infringement or a third person is liable to profit from            9 August 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
      the infringement following the expiry of the patent, or            Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5 85/93
      the proprietor of the patent is liable to suffer some              between Stichting Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace
      disadvantage as a result of the infringement following             International ) and 18 others and the Commission of the
      the expiry of the patent, does a judicial prohibition              European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      imposed in order to prevent that potential harm which                                                Spain
      restrains, for a specified period after the expiry of the
      patent, the placing on the market of products which                                        ( Case C-321 /95 P )
      were protected by the patent during its currency,                                               ( 95/C 315/25 )
      constitute a measure which is prohibited by Article 30
      of the EC Treaty and which is not covered by the                   An appeal against the order made on 9 August 1995 by the
      exception contained in Article 36 of the EC Treaty ?               First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 315/ 13
Communities in Case T-5 85/93 between Stichting                     would be in stark contrast to the position under the national
Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ) and 18              laws of the Member States and general developments in
others and the Commission of the European Communities,              international law . It would also be inconsistent with the
supported by the Kingdom of Spain, was brought before the           stated policy of the Community institutions and the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     governments of the Member States .
16 October 1995 by Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and 18 others, represented by
Philippe Sands and Mark Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of
England and Wales , instructed by Leigh, Day & Co .,
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Removal from the register of Case C-2 14/90 ( )
Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 , rue des Glacis .                                             ( 95/C 315/26 )
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    By order of 27 September 1995 the President of the Third
1.   Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of          Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
     9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93 .                               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                    C-214/90 ( reference for a preliminary ruling): Agricola
2 . Declare that the application brought by the Appellants          d'Arsego SAS v. Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel
     in Case T-585/93 is admissible .
                                                                    Mercato Agricolo ( AIMA ).
3 . Order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs of
     this appeal .                                                  (•) OJ No C 208 , 21 . 8 . 1990 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance failed to
properly interpret and apply Article 173 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-438/93 ( )
and applied the wrong criteria in assessing whether the
appellants were individually concerned by the                                                   ( 95/C 315/27 )
Commission's acts under Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                    By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Court of
The Court of First Instance applied case-law of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice which had been developed solely in the context of           from the register of Case C-438/93 ( reference for a
economic issues and rights to the effect that an individual         preliminary ruling): Adriatica Costruzioni Ancona Sri v.
must belong to a 'closed class' before he can be said to be         Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici and Comune di Ancona .
individually concerned by a Community act. The Court of
First Instance erred in applying that case-law without taking       ( 1 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
into account properly or at all the specific nature and
character of the environmental, rather than economic ,
interests which form the basis of the appellants' case .
The practical effect of applying the traditional approach to               Removal from the register of Case C-256/94 ( l )
individual concern in environmental cases is that private
parties will never be able to challenge Community measures                                       ( 95/C 315/28 )
which affect their environmental interests . There would in
effect be a total vacuum of enforcement .                           By order of the President of 24 August 1995 the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 Moreover, to hold that private parties had no rights to seek       from the register of Case C-256/94 : Commission of the
 judicial review under Article 173 of the EC Treaty of              European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
 Community acts which violated Community environmental
 obligations or which caused other harm to the environment           (') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-205/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — SSP Europe v EUIPO (SECURE DATA SPACE)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/40

         Action brought on 4 April 2017 — SSP Europe v EUIPO (SECURE DATA SPACE)
   (Case T-205/17)
   (2017/C 161/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SSP Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘SECURE DATA SPACE’ — Application No 14 056 998

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2017 in Case R 2467/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision (notified on 9 February 2017);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-110/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Malika Tennah-Durez v Conseil national de l'ordre des médecins (Directive 93/16/EEC — Free movement of doctors and mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications — Article 23(2) — Conditions of training required — Length of training — Inclusion of periods of training received in a third country — Article 9(5) — Certificate stating that the diploma was awarded following training complying with the requisite conditions — Re-examination of the conditions of training by the host Member State for the purposes of recognising the diploma)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/5
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           of the directive and was awarded following training in accor-
                                                                                dance with the provisions of Title III thereof. In the event of
                                                                                new factors coming to light which give rise to serious doubts as
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                         to the authenticity of the diploma submitted to them or as to
                                                                                whether it complies with the applicable rules, it is permissible
                                                                                for them to re-open the matter of verification with the autho-
                            of 19 June 2003                                         rities of the Member State awarding the relevant diploma.
in Case C-110/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2001.
the Conseil d'État): Malika Tennah-Durez v Conseil
                 national de l'ordre des médecins (1)
(Directive 93/16/EEC — Free movement of doctors and
mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications — Article 23(2) — Condi-
tions of training required — Length of training — Inclusion
of periods of training received in a third country — Article 9                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(5) — Certificate stating that the diploma was awarded
following training complying with the requisite conditions                                              (Second Chamber)
— Re-examination of the conditions of training by the host
 Member State for the purposes of recognising the diploma)
                                                                                of 5 June 2003
                            (2003/C 184/08)
                                                                              in Case C-121/01 P: Eoghan O'Hannrachain v European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Appeals — Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of
                                                                              the Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Documents
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in                    drawn up after the contested decision)
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/09)
In Case C-110/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                         (Language of the case: French)
EC by the Conseil d'État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before it between Malika Tennah-
Durez and Conseil national de l'ordre des médecins, on the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
interpretation of Article 9(5) and Article 23(2) of Council                                         the European Court Reports)
Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifica-
tions (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       In Case C-121/01 P, Eoghan O'Hannrachain, official of the
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth                       European Parliament, residing in Cents (Luxembourg), repre-
Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.                       sented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats: Appeal against
O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,                    the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal                Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2001 in Case
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     T-97/99 Chamier and O'Hannrachain v Parliament [2001]
19 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                          ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1, seeking to have that judgment set aside
                                                                              in part, the other party to the proceedings being: European
                                                                              Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo, H. von Hertzen and D. Moore),
1.    The medical training required by Article 23(2) of Council               the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
      Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free              President of the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President of
      movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                 the Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
      diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications      Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
      may comprise training received even mainly in a third country,          Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 2003, in
      provided that the competent authority of the Member State               which it:
      awarding the diploma is in a position to validate the training
      and to conclude on that basis that it duly serves to meet the
      requirements for the training of doctors laid down by the               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      directive.
                                                                              2.    Orders Mr O'Hannrachain to pay the costs.
2.    The authorities of the host Member State are bound by a
      certificate, issued in accordance with Article 9(5) of Directive        (1) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.
      93/16, which states that the relevant diploma is treated as one
      of the qualifications or designations set out in Article 3, 5 or 7


title: Case C-464/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/65/EC — Transport policy — Security of ports — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-464/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/65/EC - Transport policy - Security of ports - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 256/11
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Simonsson and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by L. Uibo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-201/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Television broadcasting — Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 3a — Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State — European Football Championship — Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law — Statement of reasons — Articles 49 EC and 86 EC — Right to property)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-201/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 3a - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State - European Football Championship - Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law - Statement of reasons - Articles 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property)
   2013/C 260/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, and D. Piccinin, Barrister, instructed by B. Keane and T. McQuail, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti, N. Yerrell and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by: L. Seeboruth and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and T. de la Mare, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-55/08 UEFA v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 declaring compatible with Community law measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Action brought on 24 October 1997 by DFDS Transport BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-279/97)

text:
C 387/24                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20 . 12 . 97
       investment which had been made in full long before.                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       The applicant considered that it did not conclude a
       separate sale of the installations and equipment but
       transferred its entire business, comprising the fish                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
       hatchery, clearly maintaining the undertaking as a                    submitted in Cases T- 186/97, T- 187/97, T-l 90/97, T-191/
       going concern.                                                        97, T-l 92/97, T-210/97, T-211 /97, T-216/97, T-217/97
                                                                             and T-2 18/97 ( 1 ).
— breach of the principle of legal certainty and of
       Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 . The                     (') OJ C 318 , 18 . 10 . 1997, p . 17—25 .
       applicant observes in that connection that, in the light
       of the exhaustive manner in which that regulation lays
       down the conditions for initiation of the procedure for
       suspension/cancellation/reduction of the contributions,
       it can hardly be said that the term 'significant
       alteration of the project' covers a mere change in the
       ownership of the business.                                            Action brought on 24 October 1997 by Wilson Holland
                                                                             BV against the Commission of the European Communities
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988                                           ( Case T-280/97)
      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC )
      No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of                                             ( 97/C 387/45 )
      different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
      operations of the European Investment Bank and other
      existing financial instruments ( OJ L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p. 1 ).                     (Language of the case: English)
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986
      on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
      the fisheries and aquaculture sector ( OJ L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1986 ,     An action against the Commission of the European
      p. 7 ).                                                                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 24 October
                                                                             1997 by Wilson Holland BV, represented by Catherine
                                                                             Grisart, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the office of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue
                                                                             Aldringen, Luxembourg.
Action brought on 24 October 1997 by DFDS Transport
 BV against the Commission of the European Communities                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( Case T-279/97
                              ( 97/C 387/44 )                                — annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                                June 5 , 1997 No C(97 ) 1636 def./2, under reference
                    (Language of the case: English)                                 REM 26/96 ( not published in the Official Journal of
                                                                                the European Communities ), based on Article 173 of
                                                                                the Rome Treaty,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 October                           — acknowledge that the applicant reserves all its rights to
 1997 by by DFDS Transport BV, represented by Catherine                             bring at a later stage an action for damages against the
 Grisart, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                       defendant,
 Luxembourg at the office of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue
Aldringen, Luxembourg.
                                                                             — order         the   defendant      to  bear all costs   of    the
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                       proceedings, including all costs fees and expenses of
                                                                                the applicant.
— annul the decision of the European Commission of
        5 June 1997, No C(97 ) 1636 def./l , under reference                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        REM 26/96 ( not published in the Official Journal of
        the European Communities ), based on Article 173 of
        the Rome Treaty,                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                              submitted in Cases T-l 86/97, T-l 87/97, T-l 90/97, T-191 /
                                                                              97, T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211 /97, T-216/97, T-217/97
 — acknowledge that the applicant reserves all its rights to                  and T-2 18/97 (') and T-279/97 ( 2 ).
        bring at a later stage an action for damages against the
        defendant,
                                                                              (') OJ C 318 , 18 . 10 . 1997, p. 17—25 .
                                                                              ( : ) See page 24 of this Official Journal .
 — order         the   defendant     to   bear    all    costs     of    the
        proceedings, including all costs fees and expenses of
        the applicant .


title: Case C-1/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz — Germany) — Interseroh Scrap and Metals Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM) (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Article 18(1) and (4) — Shipments of certain waste — Article 3(2) — Mandatory information — Identity of waste producers — Information not provided by the intermediary dealer — Protection of business secrets)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz — Germany) — Interseroh Scrap and Metals Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)
   (Case C-1/11) (1)

   (Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 18(1) and (4) - Shipments of certain waste - Article 3(2) - Mandatory information - Identity of waste producers - Information not provided by the intermediary dealer - Protection of business secrets)
   2012/C 151/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Mainz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Interseroh Scrap and Metals Trading GmbH

      Defendant: Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Mainz — Interpretation of Article 18(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Document appearing in Annex VII to that regulation and containing details accompanying the transportation of certain waste — Right of an intermediary not to disclose in that document the identity of the waste producer in order to protect its customers with regard to the buyer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2009 of 15 April 2009, must be interpreted as not permitting an intermediary dealer arranging a shipment of waste not to disclose the name of the waste producer to the consignee of the shipment, as provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006 in conjunction with Annex VII to that regulation, even though such non-disclosure might be necessary in order to protect the business secrets of that intermediary dealer;

               2.

               Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, must be interpreted as requiring an intermediary dealer, in the context of a shipment of waste covered by that provision, to complete Field 6 of the document contained in Annex VII to Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, and transmit it to the consignee, without any possibility of the scope of that requirement being restricted by a right to protection of business secrets.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case C-206/09: Action brought on 5 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/35

         Action brought on 5 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-206/09)
   2009/C 180/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Commission Directive 2007/68/EC (1) of 27 November 2007 amending Annex IIIa to Directive 2000/13/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain food ingredients, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/68/EC or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2007/68/EC had to be transposed expired on 31 May 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 310, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.


title: Case T-10/16: Action brought on 14 January 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/28

         Action brought on 14 January 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
   (Case T-10/16)
   (2016/C 111/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the contested decisions to be void; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s cost

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decisions:

               —

               of 2 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) on FP 7 Grant Agreements and letter dated 02 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) on FP 6 Grant Agreement regarding the defendant’s decision to proceed with the recovery further to the audit (RAIA000024) on FP7 closed grant agreements and the audit (RAIA000027) on FP6 contracts;

               —

               according to debit note No 3241514917 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) ordering the applicant to pay a total of EUR 1 770 417,29 by 15 January 2016 to the defendant’s bank account; and

               —

               according to letters dated 16 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015)5894346, ref. Ares (2015)5898040, ref. Ares (2015)5899627), 21 December 2015 (BUDG/DGA/C4/DB — 025798.4) and 14 January 2016 (BUDG/DGA/C4/DB — 025798.1) to offset each respective payment against the assumed debt of the applicant resulting from debit note No. 3241514917 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293).

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unlawful because all claimed costs fulfil the eligibility criterion stipulated in Article II.14.1 of the Grant Agreement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are vitiated on violations of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the imposition of liquidated damages in the contested decisions are unlawful as well because no unjustified financial contributions were made to the applicant.