C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the


title: Case T-34/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 108/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 5/1993 of the                   The applicant, an official classified in grade C 1, step 8, is
Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia of 24 June 1993 concerning              challenging the refusal of the selection board in internal
urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the                  competition COM/PB/99 for movement from category C to
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an                    category B to admit her to the oral test in that competition.
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.                                                            She points out in that regard that, by letter of 8 March 2000,
                                                                         the chairman of the selection board informed the applicant
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 that she had not been admitted to the oral test because of her
advanced in Case T-30/01.                                                marks in the written test, which, despite being higher than the
                                                                         minimum required (30 out of 50), were not such as to place
                                                                         her within the 170 best candidates, who were the only ones
                                                                         permitted to take part in the oral test. In order to be included
                                                                         amongst those 170 best candidates, it was necessary to obtain
                                                                         a mark totalling at least 30.25.
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                 In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
                         (Case T-34/01)                                  —     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                               reasons and of the general principle of transparency. The
                        (2001/C 108/51)                                        applicant states in that connection that the principle of
                                                                               transparency precludes a refusal to provide a candidate in
                   (Language of the case: French)                              a competition with documents and answers relating to
                                                                               matters outside the ambit of an assessment of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      comparative merits of the candidates;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria                   —     infringement of the rules governing the work done by the
Roccato (Mrs Pinson), represented by Georges Vandersanden                      selection board, and the commission of a manifest error
and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                                       of assessment in the present case;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
                                                                               misuse of powers in the present case. In that regard, the
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                               applicant, who reached the end of her career bracket on
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
                                                                               1 February 1988, speculates that the reason for her
      from the oral test in the competition;
                                                                               exclusion from the oral test may lie in the fact that the
—     annul all steps taken and to be taken in the competition;                selection board in the competition may have been biased
                                                                               in favour of younger officials having, in consequence,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    longer-term career prospects than she.


title: Case C-326/06: Action brought on 25 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/29

         Action brought on 25 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-326/06)
   (2006/C 224/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for adapting domestic law to Directive 2001/86/EC expired on 8 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 294, p. 22.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-469/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Career break benefit — Residence condition — Indirect discrimination based on nationality — Article 39 EC — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 September 2004
   in Case C-469/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Career break benefit - Residence condition - Indirect discrimination based on nationality - Article 39 EC - Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
   (2004/C 262/15)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-469/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. Michard) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, then by E. Dominkovits) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues ande R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by making the granting and payment of a benefit under the career-break benefit scheme subject to the condition that the person concerned is habitually resident in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its duties under Article 39 EC, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, Article 73 of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996;

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case C-383/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-383/16)
   (2016/C 371/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vion Livestock B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 5(4) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations…, read in conjunction with the provisions regarding the journey log in Annex II to that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that they impose an obligation on the organiser of the transport and/or on the keeper of the animals, when transporting animals to a third country, to keep the journey log up to the place of destination in that third country?

               2.

               Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 (2) of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport…, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the journey log was not kept up to the place of destination in the third country, for the reason that the transporter discharged the obligation laid down in point 7 of Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 to give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?

               3.

               Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Regulation No 817/2010, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the exporter is unable to prove compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005, in a situation where the veterinarian, in the context of the checks which he is required to carry out in the third country pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 817/2010, is unable to verify whether or not the route plan data (the journey log) are satisfactory, that is to say, whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 (and is consequently also unable to declare that the outcome of those checks is satisfactory), inasmuch as the transporter has given the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.


title: Case C-309/08: Order of the President of the Court of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-309/08) (1)

   2010/C 11/33

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case F-31/11: Action brought on 26 March 2011 — ZZ v CEDEFOP

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/33

         Action brought on 26 March 2011 — ZZ v CEDEFOP
   (Case F-31/11)
   2011/C 186/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Director of CEDEFOP to terminate the employment of the applicant and for reparation of material and non-material loss sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 14 April 2010 of the Director of CEDEFOP terminating the employment of the applicant;

               —

               order CEDEFOP to pay him, by way of compensation for his material loss in the absence of reinstatement or until any such reinstatement, the difference between firstly, the remuneration and pension that he would have received if he had remained in service after the 15 November 2010 and, secondly, the possible remuneration or unemployment benefit and pension which he would receive after that date;

               —

               order CEDEFOP to pay the applicant compensation for his non-material loss, provisionally assessed at 35 000 Euros;

               —

               order CEDEFOP to pay the costs.


title: Case T-509/10: Action brought on 20 October 2010 — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/57

         Action brought on 20 October 2010 — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
   (Case T-509/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/111
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Escalatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Council Decision of 26 July 2010;

               —

               annul, in its entirety, Council implementing Regulation No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010;

               —

               order the Council to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, a commercial undertaking trading in the oil industry sector, is seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, inasmuch as the name of the applicant has been included on a list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources have been frozen pursuant to that provision.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits eight pleas in law:

               —

               a breach of the duty to give reasons, as the Council relied on vague and imprecise factors which cannot be verified;

               —

               a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights, in so far as (i) the applicant was obliged, in order to defend itself, to prove a negative, namely, that it has not contributed to the Iranian nuclear programme, (ii) the applicant was granted a very short period within which to file a request for a review and (iii) the applicant has been deprived of its right to effective judicial protection and of its right to property, as it has not had access to the information contained in the dossier on it;

               —

               a lack of competence, as the Council is not competent to adopt measures accompanying UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), as that resolution lays down no measure referring to the oil industry;

               —

               a misuse of power inasmuch as the contested decision would freeze all the transactions carried out by the applicant in the European Union, including acquisitions of non-essential equipment, thus going beyond what is covered by Article 4 of the contested decision;

               —

               an error of law, as the sale of dual-use goods cannot justify a measure against an entity freezing its funds, where that entity does not actually contribute to the Iranian nuclear programme;

               —

               a material factual inaccuracy, inasmuch as the applicant has not acquired any goods likely to be of interest to the Iranian nuclear programme;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment, since the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s right to property and its right to carry on an economic activity are not justified by any public interest ground and are disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued;

               —

               no legal basis for the contested regulation as a consequence of the annulment of the contested decision.

      (1)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

      (2)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).


title: Case T-128/16: Action brought on 24 March 2016 — SureID v EUIPO (SUREID)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/29

         Action brought on 24 March 2016 — SureID v EUIPO (SUREID)
   (Case T-128/16)
   (2016/C 175/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SureID, Inc. (Hillsboro, Oregon, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SUREID’ — Application for registration No 13 698 675

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 1478/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Plea in law

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


title: Case C-418/10 P: Appeal brought on 23 August 2010 by Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Stabilator sp zoo

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/24

      Appeal brought on 23 August 2010 by Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Stabilator sp zoo
      (Case C-418/10 P)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/42)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Zinnecker and S. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Stabilator sp zoo

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09;

                  —

                  Deliver final judgment in the case and uphold the forms of order sought by the appellant in the course of the proceedings at first instance;

                  —

                  In the alternative, set aside the judgment referred to in the first indent above and refer the matter back to the General Court;

                  —

                  Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  First the grounds of the judgment under appeal are, in and of themselves, contradictory. On the one hand, the General Court accepts that the Board of Appeal limited itself to examining which types of undertaking would offer the opposing goods and services, and thereby wrongly assessed the number of those undertakings possibly as a consequence of a too-narrow interpretation of the lists of earlier marks resulting from an overall assessment of the goods and services. On the other hand, the question whether the Board of Appeal made errors of assessment can be decided upon only after an assessment of ‘the Board of Appeal’s prevailing examination of each of the goods and services covered by the application’, whereas the General Court then undertakes those individual assessments — which had not been carried out by the Board of Appeal — in order to reach the conclusion that no errors made by the Board of Appeal were apparent. That inconsistency had a burdensome effect on the appellant, since in the context of the individual comparisons undertaken by General Court, constant recourse was had to the ‘overall comparison’, carried out by the Board of Appeal on the basis of sectors, so that the restrictive interpretation of the lists of goods and services covered by earlier marks resulting from that ‘overall comparison’ is repeated.

                  2.

                  Second, the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that, for each of the individual comparisons of the lists of goods and services of the marks at issue which it carried out, the General Court interpreted them too narrowly in the light of the overall comparison on the basis of sectors carried out by the Board of Appeal, and the General Court thereby distorted the content of those lists and, consequently, distorted the factors such as nature, use, intended purpose and addressees of the relevant goods and services which result therefrom.

                  3.

                  Third, the General Court infringed Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 and its own Rules of Procedure, in particular the therein referred to Community law principle of the right to a fair hearing, in that it did not allow specific documents in evidence, although it was not possible for the appellant to produce those documents before OHIM, as it could not have predicted that OHIM would not compare the individual goods and services of the relevant signs against one another but rather merely examine them by way of an overall assessment.


title: Case C-158/10: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad Van State — Netherlands) — Johan van Leendert Holding BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad Van State — Netherlands) — Johan van Leendert Holding BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Case C-158/10) (1)

   2011/C 211/39
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Action brought on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-209/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 228/7
The Commission further considers that neither the steps                 Action brought on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the
taken by Belgium with regard to the protection of the                   European Communities against the Council of the
North Sea nor the (national and regional ) Belgian rules                                       European Union
constitute programmes for the reduction of pollution                                           ( Case C-209/97)
within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 14 )
H OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976, p . 23 .
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and
Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of                      Pieter Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, with an address for
the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                        Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                Republic
                          ( Case C-208/97)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims
                            ( 97/C 228/13 )                             that the Court should :
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   — annul      Council     Regulation    ( EC )   No   515/97  of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the
on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                            administrative authorities of the Member States and
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      cooperation between the latter and the Commission to
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                  ensure the correct application of the law on customs
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                   and agricultural matters ( j ),
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        — maintain in force, pursuant to Article 174 of the EC
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Treaty, Titles V and VI of the abovementioned
                                                                            Regulation,
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 84/156/EEC ( J ) of                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
     for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     alkali electrolysis industry, inasmuch as it neither drew
     up or implemented the specific programmes provided
     for in Article 4 thereof, the Portuguese Republic has              — Incorrect legal basis :
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                          The Regulation at issue could have been based on
     Article 4 of Directive 84/156/EEC,                                     Article 100a of the EC Treaty, so as to exclude
                                                                            reliance on Article 235 thereof. It is submitted that:
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
     inform    the   Commission          of such   measures,   the          — like the previous regulation ( Regulation ( EEC )
     Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations                        No    1468/81 ),    Regulation      ( EC ) No   515/97
     under those provisions,                                                     constitutes a measure for the harmonization of the
                                                                                national laws of the Member States . That initial
                                                                                regulation was based on Article 235 of the EC
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Treaty because, at the time of its adoption,
                                                                                Article 100a of the EC Treaty, which was
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                             introduced by the Single European Act, was not
                                                                                yet in existence . Indeed, the last recital in the
 Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                      preamble shows that, according to the Council,
 a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                  Article 235 is relied on only as regards the
 upon each Member State to which it is addressed. In the                         establishment of the new ' CIS' database ( Customs
 present case, the Directive was fully applicable as from                        Information System — see Articles 23 to 41 of the
 13 March 1986 and the specific programmes provided for                          Regulation in issue ).
 in Article 4 thereof applied as from 1 January 1989 .
 Despite the prescribed periods having expired, the                              However, the CIS cannot be regarded as an
 Portuguese Republic did not draw up or apply the                                autonomous Community entity. The Member
 abovementioned specific programmes or, in any event, did                        States are, as such, ' CIS partners', as is the
 not inform the Commission thereof.                                              Commission, which does not play a central role in
                                                                                the CIS but performs a coordinating function .
 (') OJ No L 74 , 17. 3 . 1984, p . 49 .
                                                                                The Commission considers, in the alternative, that
                                                                                even if it was necessary, in view of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 7 . 97
        establishment of the CIS, to rely on Article 235              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial
         (quod non), nevertheless, the legal basis of the             gericht Niedersachsen by order of that court of 22 May
        provisions relating to mutual assistance on request           1997 in the case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt
         and spontaneous assistance should have been                       fur Arbeit, joined party: Federal Republic of Germany
        Article 100a . In Case C-300/89, the Court of                                           ( Case C-211/97)
        Justice held that an act may not have a dual legal
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 16 )
         basis where one of those bases corresponds to the
        cooperation procedure ( Article 189b of the EC
        Treaty) and the other requires unanimity, inasmuch            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         as that would undermine the very purpose of the              European Communities by an order of the Landessozial
        cooperation procedure, thereby divesting it of its            gericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour Court, Lower
         substance,                                                   Saxony ) of 22 May 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 4 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
     — the Regulation lays down the organizational
                                                                      case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit,
        measures needed for the requisite cooperation
         between them and the Commission, with a view to
                                                                      joined party: Federal Republic of Germany, on the
                                                                      following questions:
         ensuring the functioning of the internal market,
     — no other specific legal basis exists in the Treaty;            ( a ) Does the option by a person employed by a consular
        this would appear to be confirmed by the fact that                   post under the first sentence of Article 16 ( 2 ) of
         the Council has had recourse to Article 235                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 H to be subject to the
         thereof.                                                            legislation of the sending Member State of which he is
                                                                             a national also have effect for his spouse, not
(') OJ No L 82, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .                                       employed by the consular service, who is also a
                                                                             national of the sending Member State,
                                                                             or
                                                                             is the legislation of the sending Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge
richt Köln by order of that court of 6 May 1997 in the                       applicable to the spouse only if she herself also opts to
                                                                             be subject to it ?
case of Haydar Akman against the Oberkreisdirektor des
Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises, Joined party: Vertreter des
    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln              ( b ) If the option by the national who is in the consular
                                                                             service also has effect for his spouse, does the
                         ( Case C-210/97 )
                                                                             effectiveness of the option to be subject to the
                           ( 97/C 228/15 )                                   legislation of the sending Member State presuppose
                                                                             the consent or other cooperation of the spouse who is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       also affected thereby ?
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge
richt Koln (Administrative Court, Cologne ) of 6 May                  (') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Haydar Akman against
the Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises
( Chief Administrative Officer of the administrative district
Rheinisch-Bergischer-Kreis ), Joined party: Vertreter des             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret by
offentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Koln                  order of 3 June 1997 in the case of Centros Limited v.
( Representative of the Public Interest before the                                       Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen
Administrative Court, Cologne ), on the following
question:                                                                                ( Case C-212/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 17 )
For a child of a Turkish worker to have the right to
extension of his residence permit, which, according to the
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-355/93 Eroglu
                                                                      European Communities by order of 3 June 1997 from the
v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg ('), arises from the second
                                                                      Hojesteret ( Danish Supreme Court), which was received at
paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                      the Court Registry on 5 June 1997, for a preliminary
EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
the Association, must the employed parent still be resident           ruling in the case of Centros Limited v. Erhvervs- og
                                                                      Selskabsstyrelsen ( Trade and Companies Board) on the
in Germany, or even still be in an employment
                                                                      following question:
relationship, at the time when the child has completed his
course of vocational training, or is that provision
sufficiently complied with if the Turkish parent was legally          Is it compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty, in
employed at an earlier time for at least three years ?                conjunction with Articles 58 and 56 thereof, to refuse
                                                                      registration of a subsidiary of a company which has its
O [ 1994] ECR 1-5113 .                                                registered office in another Member State and has been
                                                                      lawfully founded with company capital of £ 100
                                                                       ( approximately Dkr 1 000 ) and established under the


title: Case T-200/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission (State aid — Measures on the part of the Italian authorities aimed at compensating for the damage caused by ovine catarrhal fever (blue tongue) — Guidelines concerning State aid in the agricultural sector)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission
   (Case T-200/04) (1)

   (State aid - Measures on the part of the Italian authorities aimed at compensating for the damage caused by ovine catarrhal fever (blue tongue) - Guidelines concerning State aid in the agricultural sector)
   (2006/C 48/57)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)
   Application for
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 471 Final of 16 March 2004 concerning the aid scheme which Italy is planning to implement in favour of processing and marketing cooperatives in order to compensate the damage caused by ovine catarrhal fever (blue tongue) (Article 5 of Law No 22 of the Region of Sardinia of 17 November 2000)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-108/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Cornu SA Fontain (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark FERRO — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark FERRERO — Evidence of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Cornu SA Fontain
   (Case C-108/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark FERRO - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark FERRERO - Evidence of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark)
   (2008/C 142/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent), Cornu SA Fontain
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM and Cornu in proceedings against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG mbH and Cornu SA Fontain — Interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between the two marks — Moderate degree of similarity between the marks — Little similarity between the goods — Distinctive character of the earlier mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4);

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain to pay the costs of the appeal;

               4.

               Orders Ferrero Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

               5.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

               6.

               Orders Cornu SA Fontain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in relation to its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-80/07: Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Economidis v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/31

         Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Economidis v Commission
   (Case F-80/07)
   (2007/C 235/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision reorganising the directorate-general for RTD inasmuch as that decision fills, in particular, the posts of head of unit for F.1 ‘Horizontal aspects and coordination’ and for F.5 ‘Health biotechnology’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In October 2006, the Commission, in the context of a reorganisation of DG RTD, appointed Mr H and Mr X as heads of unit for F.1 and F.5 respectively. By judgment of 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission
       (1), the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the Commission decision of 23 December 2004, appointing Mr H to the post of Head of Unit ‘Health biotechnology’, one of the units of the same DG before the reorganisation.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies first on an infringement of Article 233 EC, in that the Commission, by virtue of the reorganisation of the DG, maintains that it is not possible to execute the judgment of 14 December 2006. According to the applicant, the decision of 23 December 2004 having been annulled, Mr H cannot be reemployed in the post of Head of Unit in the framework of the reorganisation of the DG concerned.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that there are two possibilities, either the Unit ‘Health biotechnology’ still exists, but under another name and with its tasks redefined, or it has indeed been abolished. In the first case, the administration should have executed the judgment of 14 December and, in the second case, the administration should have opened the procedure to fill the posts of head of unit created by the reorganisation and, accordingly, permitted him to submit his candidature. In not having followed that procedure, the defendant infringed Articles 4, 7, 24 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the principle of reasonable career prospects.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 30.12.2006, p. 47.


title: Case F-21/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Illegality — Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in the case — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-21/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Illegality - Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in the case - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
   2012/C 138/59
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the fact that the defendant sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer who no longer represented him.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010. p. 57.


title: Case T-398/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Fapricela v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Decision of the Commission imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application to suspend operation — Financial damage — Lack of exceptional circumstances — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/20

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Fapricela v Commission
   (Case T-398/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Decision of the Commission imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application to suspend operation - Financial damage - Lack of exceptional circumstances - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 282/41
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (Ançã, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and S. Roux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, agents, assisted by M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel), inter alia in so far as it imposes the obligation to set up a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-688/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014  — Airport Handling v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/26

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Airport Handling v Commission
   (Case T-688/14)
   2014/C 388/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Airport Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented by: R. Cafari Panico and F. Scarpellini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in its entirety, Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 whereby the European Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure in Case SA.21420 (2014/NN) concerning the setting up of the company Airport Handling SpA (‘the contested decision’);

               —

               in the alternative, in the unlikely event that the Court decides that only some of the complaints raised in the present action should be upheld, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns those complaints;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant argues that the contested decision is vitiated by the fact that the European Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling SpA was SEA Handling’s successor on the basis of a presumed economic connection between the two companies and, on the strength of that incorrect assumption, adopted the decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, also alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision was wrong in so far as the Commission held that the capitalisation of Airport Handling SpA could represent State aid incompatible with the market and, on the basis of that incorrect assumption, initiated a formal investigation procedure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, failed to fulfil its obligation to carry out an impartial and thorough examination of the information in its possession, and failed to take account of the need to weigh up the interests involved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2004 in Case T-393/02: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a white and transparent bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 24 November 2004
   in Case T-393/02: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a white and transparent bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 31/38)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-393/02: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider) – action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2002 (Case R 313/2001-4), concerning the registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of a white and transparent bottle – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 October 2002 (Case R 313/2001-4);

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case T-250/03: Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/19
Decision of the Oppo-         Partial admission of the oppo-              Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:              sition and allowance to proceed
                              to registration of the Community
                              trade mark for the following                The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
                              goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing             of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
                              gum.                                        against her suspension from her duties following her removal
                                                                          from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
                                                                          Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Appeal:                       Société des Produits Nestlé.                position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
                                                                          and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.
Pleas in law:                 According to the applicant there
                              is no likelihood of confusion               This application is based on the following elements:
                              between the two marks and it
                              refers in this respect to a judgment        —     Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
                              of the Superior Court of justice in               the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
                              Madrid that allegedly stated that                 suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
                              Menorquina was not entitled to                    absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
                              oppose the use of the word mark                   Staff Regulation.
                              ‘POLO’ in Spain.
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation, in the
                                                                                absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
                                                                                urgent need to exclude her from the working place.
                                                                          —     Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
                                                                                the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
                                                                                portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.
                                                                          —     Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen                               a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.
                       (Case T-250/03)
                       (2003/C 239/37)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
                  (Language of the case: English)                         + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-251/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 239/38)
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.                                         (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting              European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
      the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her              GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
      duties;                                                             Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
                                                                          seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court;                            Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
                                                                          Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
                                                                          Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.


title: Case T-507/10: Action brought on 28 October 2010 — Viktor Uspaskich v European Parliament

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/28

         Action brought on 28 October 2010 — Viktor Uspaskich v European Parliament
   (Case T-507/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/55
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by Vytautas Sviderskis, lawyer, and Stanislovas Tomas, legal consultant)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Parliament of 7 September 2010 No P7_TA(2010)0296 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant bases his application on four pleas in law.
   First of all, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed his rights of defence and the principle of good administration in procedure 2009/2147 (IMM). The European Parliament refused to hear the applicant during the procedure for waiver of his immunity both in the Committee on Legal Affairs and during the plenary session. It failed to take account of the majority of the applicant’s arguments and did not answer any of them.
   Second, the European Parliament adopted the contested decision on an incorrect legal basis and infringed point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union because it relied on a clearly incorrect interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 62 of the Lithuanian Constitution. The applicant refers to the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010 in Case T-42/06 Gollnisch v Parliament, in which the Court held that there had been an analogous infringement by the European Parliament.
   Third, the defendant failed to observe the fumus persecutionis principle and committed a manifest error of assessment when considering it. The defendant entirely disregarded its previous decisions regarding fumus persecutionis. The European Parliament failed, moreover, to take into account the fact that at the time of the decision to bring a criminal prosecution a political leader was not responsible for infringements connected with administration, and that material from the preliminary investigation had been published.
   Fourth, the defendant infringed the applicant’s right to submit a request to defend his immunity in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. It refused to examine the applicant’s request that it defend his immunity on the ground that the measure requiring him to pay a security of EUR 436 000 is disproportionate to the potential maximum fine for the criminal offence with which he is charged.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-55/97)

text:
No C 142/26            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant the sum of Fl 330 626, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of payment in full;                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case 7-50/97 ( x ).
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall              (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 57 698
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full;
                                                                       Action brought on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M.
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                           Stoffelen against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                              ( Case T-56/97 )
                                                                                97/C 142/55
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M. Stoffelen,
                                                                       of Ottersum ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen                      Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
against the Council of the European Union and the                      of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
           Commission of the European Communities                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                       Guillaume .
                          ( Case T-55 /97 )
                           ( 97/C 142/54 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                       applicant the sum of Fl 313 437, together with interest
the Commission of the European Communities was                                thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    1992 until the date of payment in full ;
Communities on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen, of
Maasbree (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker                       in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                              think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 122 738
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                           ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Guillaume .
                                                                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
                                                                              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   1992 until the date of the payment in full;
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                     ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .
      applicant the sum of Fl 234 230, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of payment in full;                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall              Case T-50/97 C ).
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 97 506
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full ;


title: Case T-363/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Abbot Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark RESTORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Abbot Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)
   (Case T-363/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark RESTORE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 6/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbot Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and J. Springer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1560/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark RESTORE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Abbott Laboratories to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010


title: Case C-542/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Purely internal situation — Application of analogous national rules — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concerted practice — Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider — Conditions)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’
   (Case C-542/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Purely internal situation - Application of analogous national rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concerted practice - Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider - Conditions))
   (2016/C 343/05)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā Tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, Konkurences padome

      Respondents: Konkurences padome, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may, in principle, be held liable for a concerted practice on account of the acts of an independent service provider supplying it with services only if one of the following conditions is met:

               —

               the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or

               —

               that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or

               —

               that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.12.2015.


title: Case T-18/12: Action brought on 9 January 2012 — Interbev v European Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/21

         Action brought on 9 January 2012 — Interbev v European Commission
   (Case T-18/12)
   2012/C 80/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Association Nationale Interprofessionnelle du Bétail et des Viandes (Interbev) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Morrier and A. Bouviala, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011, State aid SA. 14974 (C 46/2003) — France — concerning the levies for INTERBEV, C(2011) 4923 final, not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in so far as it classifies as State aid the measures adopted by INTERBEV between 1996 and 2004 concerning publicity, promotion, technical assistance and research and development, on the one hand, and the extended voluntary levies which finance that action as State resources forming an integral part of the abovementioned State aid measures, on the other hand;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the European Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011, State aid SA. 14974 (C 46/2003) — France — concerning the levies for INTERBEV, C(2011) 4923 final, not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union, in so far as it encourages the national courts to order repayment of the extended voluntary levies (contested decision, recitals 201 and 202);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning of the contested decision is insufficient in the light of Article 296 TFEU and with regard to the conditions concerning: (i) a selective economic advantage for operators in the cattle and sheep sectors; (ii) the State origin of the measures adopted by the applicant; (iii) the distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States; and (iv) the direct connection between the action taken by the applicant and the extended voluntary levies, also known as binding voluntary levies, charged between 1996 and 2004.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the measures adopted by the applicant between 1996 and 2004:

                           —

                           cannot be imputed to the State and the extended voluntary levies which financed them do not constitute State resources and cannot in any way be imputed to the French State;

                           —

                           do not constitute an economic advantage for one or more recipients;

                           —

                           do not affect, even potentially, competition or trade between Member States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment with regard to the existence of a direct causal connection between the extended voluntary levies and the measures adopted by the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment with regard to the consequences which the national courts should draw from the lack of notification of the extended voluntary levies. The Commission, in paragraph 202 of the contested decision, encourages national courts to order repayment of the extended voluntary levies and to declare the aid invalid, and calls upon the persons affected to bring their cases before the national courts, whereas the national courts are not obliged to order repayment of the aid and the extended voluntary levies because such repayment would be inappropriate and impossible in practice.


title: Case T-186/00: Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Società Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.10.2000
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by Métropole Télévision                   active effect to the contested decision. In short, the Com-
(M6) against the Commission of the European Communi-                     mission had exempted the system for the sub-licensing of
                               ties                                      Eurovision rights, whereas that system is by nature discriminat-
                                                                         ory. Lastly, the applicant maintains that, by adopting the
                                                                         contested decision, the Commission has committed a misuse
                         (Case T-185/00)                                 of powers.
                         (2000/C 285/26)
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18.
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 2000 by Métropole Télé-
vision (M6), established at Neuilly/Seine (France), represented
by Didier Théophile, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                         Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Società Conserve
                                                                         Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul all the provisions of Commission Decision                                             (Case T-186/00)
      2000/400/EC dated 10 May 2000 (Case IV/32.150 Euro-
      vision);
                                                                                (2000/C 285/27)
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Società Conserve
The applicant is contesting the Commission’s decision of
                                                                         Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
10 May 2000 declaring Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of
                                                                         represented by Marina Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano
the EEA Agreement to be inapplicable to certain agreements
                                                                         Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg
of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) governing the
                                                                         at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13 B Avenue Guillaume.
acquisition of television rights to sporting events, the exchange
of sports programmes within the framework of Eurovision
and access to Eurovision sports rights for third parties (1). That       The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision was adopted as a result of the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases T-528/93,
T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93 Métropole Télévision and                 —     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance                      EC, the Commission’s decision of 3 May 2000 (C (2000)
annulled the Commission’s exemption decision of 11 June                        1099);
1993.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant complains, first of all, that the Commission is
asserting, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held in
its aforementioned judgment, that its decision dated 11 June             Pleas in law and principal arguments
1993 did not include the criteria for EBU membership. On the
basis of that postulation, the new criteria adopted by the EBU
following delivery of the judgment of the Court of First                 The present action is directed against the Commission’s
Instance have been wrongly excluded from the scope of the                decision of 3 May 2000 (C (2000) 1099), notified on 9 May
decision.                                                                2000, which ‘withdraws the grant of aid by EAGGF, Guidance
                                                                         Section, for project No 9 (beneficiary: Massalombarda
                                                                         Colombani S.p.A.) in the context of operational programme
In addition, the applicant maintains that the criteria for EBU           No 91.C.T.I.T.01 approved by Commission Decision
membership are manifestly anti-competitive. It goes on to                No C(91)2255/6 of 28.10.1991, and which reduces the
complain that the Commission has unlawfully given retro-                 amount payable in respect of that operational programme’.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/15
The applicant points out in that regard that, one year before it         —     infringement of the Treaty, on account of the contradic-
acquired Massalombarda Colombani, an inspection had been                       tory nature of the reasons given in the contested decision.
carried out jointly by the Italian Finance Ministry and the
Commission at the premises of that company for the purposes
of verifying the implementation of the EAGGF project referred            (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1.
to above. Certain irregularities were discovered during the
course of that inspection. The following year (again, prior to
the acquisition by Conserve Italia), various further irregularities
were ascertained. In consequence of those irregularities estab-
lished in 1994, the defendant proceeded in 1997 to discon-
tinue one of the four projects checked (that relating to the
Massalombarda plant).
                                                                         Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Comité International
                                                                         de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
By the contested decision, the Commission has now withdrawn
the aid for project No 9.
                                                                                (Case T-188/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 285/28)
The applicant points out that the situation at issue has arisen
not as a result of any conduct or acts on the part of the
applicant, which now finds itself — solely in consequence of                                 (Language of the case: English)
the acquisition and subsequent amalgamation with Massalom-
barda — formally in dispute with the Commission, but rather
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
as a result of a project organised previously by an earlier
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
company with which the applicant had no connection what-
                                                                         European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Comité Inter-
ever. Despite this, the circumstances surrounding the EAGGF
                                                                         national de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (Brussels),
projects of Massalombarda threaten to frustrate the investment
                                                                         represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, of
made by Conserve Italia, which it cannot recoup or recover
                                                                         Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
from the vendor.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     annul decision SG(2000)D/102503 of the European
                                                                               Commission contained in its letter of 20 March 2000 to
                                                                               the German Government relating to case N 406/99,
—     irregularities revealed in the Commission’s documenta-                   approving State aid to the undertaking Delon Filament
      tion;                                                                    GmbH;
                                                                         —     in case it finds the decision compatible with the Code on
                                                                               Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry, in terms of the
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                capacity reduction required, declare this Code unlawful
      No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                          under Article 241 EC;
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                                                                               proceedings.
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). The Commission has
      infringed that provision in two respects:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      (a)   the irregularities ascertained are wholly irrelevant as      By adopting the contested decision the Commission declared
            regards compliance with the conditions relating to           State aid granted by the German authorities to the undertaking
            the date of commencement of the works, and the               Delon Filament GmbH compatible with the EC Treaty. The aid
            Commission has in any event based its own decision           in question is intended to finance investments in the polyamide
            on an analysis of irrelevant documents, without              fibre production in a plant in Rudolstadt, Thuringia (Germany).
            attaching any weight to more sound evidence made
            available to it;                                             The applicant is a representative of producers of man-made
                                                                         fibres. It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
                                                                         grounds:
      (b) having ascertained mere ‘irregularities’, it has with-
            drawn the aid, whereas it should, if anything, have          —     The Commission failed to explain how it has arrived at
            simply reduced it;                                                 the capacity figures for Delon quoted in the decision;


title: Case C-490/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 11 August 2017 — Passengers Rights sp. z o.o. v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 11 August 2017 — Passengers Rights sp. z o.o. v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-490/17)
   (2017/C 357/07)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Passengers Rights sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an internal strike organised by a trade union of a carrier’s employees constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, (1) in conjunction with recital 14 of that regulation?

               2.

               For a carrier to be exempted from the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, in conjunction with recital 14 of that regulation, is it sufficient to make out a probable case, or is it also necessary to prove, that the employees’ strike constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures at the carrier’s disposal had been taken?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-225/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/47

         Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)
   (Case T-225/08)
   (2008/C 223/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (Ebersburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Wadenbach, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Schwarzbräu GmbH (Zusmarshausen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2008 (Case R 877/2004-4);

               —

               Completely delete the Community trade mark No 505 552 ‘ALASKA’ owing to the existence of absolute grounds for refusal;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               In the alternative to the second application, declare Community trade mark No 505 552 ‘ALASKA’ invalid at least in respect of the following goods: ‘Mineral waters and carbonated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks in Class 32’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘ALASKA’ for goods in Class 32 (Community trade mark No 505 552)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for the declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).