C 55/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                       8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-97/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/58)                                                         (2003/C 55/61)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/02 (Reference for a preliminary         from the register of Case C-97/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite Franchi SpA v            ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Rezzola Scavi Srl v
Ministero delle Finanze.                                               Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-95/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-98/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/59)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/62)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                       By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-95/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       from the register of Case C-98/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Ugine Srl v Ministero delle
                                                                       ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Villa Gemma SpA v
Finanze.
                                                                       Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-96/02 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-106/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/60)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/63)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-96/02 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): TOMAR Srl v Ministero             from the register of Case C-106/02: Commission of the
delle Finanze.                                                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case F-4/11: Action brought on 31 March 2011 — AV v Commission

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/21

         Action brought on 31 March 2011 — AV v Commission
   (Case F-4/11)
   2011/C 179/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AV (Cadrezzate, Italy) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of decisions to defer medical cover in respect of the applicant as provided for by Article 32 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union and not to grant him entitlement to the invalidity allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 October 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decisions of 12 April 2010 to defer medical cover in respect of the applicant as provided for by Article 32 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union (CEOS) and 16 April 2010 not to grant him entitlement to an invalidity allowance;

               —

               As necessary, annul the decisions of 12 April 2010 to defer medical cover in respect of the applicant as provided for by Article 32 of the CEOS and 16 April 2010 not to grant him entitlement to an invalidity allowance;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-514/12: Action brought on 22 November 2012 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/66

         Action brought on 22 November 2012 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY)
   (Case T-514/12)
   2013/C 26/130
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, United States of America) (represented by N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

      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) in case R 1017/2012-4 of 12 September 2012 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision in respect of services in Class 39: ‘Arranging of cruises, Cruise ship services, Cruise arrangement’ and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY’ for services in Class 39 — Community trade mark application No 10 281 905

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-12/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2011 — Gruber v OHIM (Run the globe) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Run the globe — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2011 — Gruber v OHIM (Run the globe)
   (Case T-12/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Run the globe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 152/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexander Gruber (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Kienle and M. Krinke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schnäffner, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2008 (Case R 1779/2007-1) concerning a request for registration of the word sign Run the globe as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alexander Gruber to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


3 . 2 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 31 / 17
        Removal from the register of Case C-82/94 ( )                 from the register of Case C-56/95 : Briihler Kreditbank eG v.
                                                                      Finanzamt Briihl .
                           ( 96/C 31 /35 )
By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-82/94 : Andreas Mohringer v.
Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
( ) OJ No C 120 , 30. 4 . 1994 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-86/95 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /38 )
                                                                      By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-108/94 ( )                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-86/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 31 /36 )                            European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 27 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/94 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-101/95 ( )
                                                                                96 /C 3 1 /3 9
                                                                      By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-56/95 ( )                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 96/C 31 /37 )                            from the register of Case C-101 /95 : Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               (•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               legal persons who are members of that association and
                                                                      whose names are included on the list annexed to the
                       ( Third Chamber)
                                                                      judgment, and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van
                   of 13 December 1995                                Levend Vee, along with the natural and legal persons who
in Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van                 are members of that association and whose names are
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van                included on the list annexed to the judgment, having their
Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the                       registered offices in Roosendaal (Netherlands ), represented
                 European Communities ( ] )                           by Inne Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
(Live pigs — Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong,
93/1 77/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with              14 Rue des Bains, against Commission of the European
regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and             Communities ( Agents : Thomas van Rijn, Tom Ottervanger
Italy — Actions for annulment — Actions for                           and Harold Nyssens ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/1 77/EEC, of
                          compensation)
                                                                      26 February 1993 and 26 March 1993 respectively,
                           ( 96/C 31 /40 )                            concerning certain protection measures with regard to
                                                                      swine vesicular disease in the Netherlands and Italy ( OJ
                                                                      1993 No L 50 , p. 29 , and OJ 1993 No L 74, p. 88 ), and for
                                                                      the award of damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third
               (Language of the cases: Dutch)                         Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, acting as President,
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       13 December 1995 , in which it :
In Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 : Vereniging van
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, along with the natural and              1 . dismisses the applications;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord (Case C-234/O1)

text:
1.9.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 245/5
(3) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing                                     (Case C-235/01)
      inflation, also requires insurance undertakings, if the
      client so requests, to draw up policies the terms of which
      incorporate a bonus-malus arrangement (positive or                                          (2001/C 245/10)
      negative adjustment of the premium on the basis of the
      claims record) subject to an excess in an amount set
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      between the minimum and the maximum level permitted
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 June
      by law?
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(4) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             represented by Bernard Mongin and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      inflation, provides that, on expiry of the period during
      which premium rates were frozen, the insured person              —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and
      may withdraw from the contract if, on the date for annual              administrative provisions necessary for compliance with
      renewal of the policy, an increase is applied to the                   Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
      premium (not provided for under a customised arrange-                  Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
      ment) higher than the scheduled rate of inflation decided              seafarers (1), or in any event by not forwarding those
      by the Government?                                                     provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ L 228 of 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case               provides that a directive is binding on each Member State to
   of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord                  which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, involves
                                                                       an obligation on Member States to respect the periods for
                        (Case C-234/O1)                                transposition laid down in directives. That period expired on
                                                                       1 July 1999 without the Italian Republic having issued the
                        (2001/C 245/09)                                provisions necessary for compliance with the directive cited in
                                                                       the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance            (1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.
Court), Berlin, of 28 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt (District Tax
Office) Neukölln-Nord on the following question:
Is there an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                       Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic
Article 43 EC) where, under Paragraph 50a(4), first sentence,
                                                                       of Germany against the Commission of the European
point (1) and second sentence, of the Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                                Communities
(Law on Income Tax) as in force in 1996 (’EStG 1996’), a
Netherlands national who earns in the Federal Republic of
Germany taxable net income of approximately                                                       (Case C-239/01)
DEM 5 000 from self-employed activity in the calendar year is
subject to deduction of tax at source by the person liable to                                     (2001/C 245/11)
pay his fees at the rate of 25 % his (gross) revenue of
approximately DEM 6 000 plus solidarity surcharge, where it
is not possible, by means of an application for a refund or an         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
application for a tax assessment, for him to recover, in whole         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
or in part, the taxes paid?                                            Communities on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and J. Sedemund,
                                                                       acting as Agents.


title: Order of the Court of 23 October 2013 in Case E-2/13 — Bentzen Transport AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Refusal to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)

text:
               20.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/13

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   of 23 October 2013
   in Case E-2/13
   Bentzen Transport AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Refusal to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)
   2014/C 81/13
   In Case E-2/13, Bentzen Transport AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 507/12/COL of 19 December 2012 in Case No 71620 concerning the closure of a case against Norway commenced following receipt of a complaint against the State in the field of public procurement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 23 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant bears the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-4/99 P: Appeal brought on 6 January 1999 by Anthony Goldstein against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/7
(Finance Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in              1. The appeal is dismissed.
the proceedings pending before that court between Eurowings
Luftverkehrs AG and Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna — on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  2. Ms Gluiber is to bear her own costs.
amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Presidents of Cham-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which
it has ruled:
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)          Appeal brought on 6 January 1999 by Anthony Goldstein
precludes national legislation on trade tax such as that at issue in the   against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the Court
main action.                                                               of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant
                                                                               and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                (Case C-4/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 January 1999 by Anthony
                          (First Chamber)                                  Goldstein against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant and
                       of 14 October 1999                                  the Commission of the European Communities.
in Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                        By order of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber)
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the
                             munities (1)                                  costs.
       (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                           (2000/C 20/12)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                           mission against the order made on 14 September 1999 by
                   (Language of the case: German)                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt Gesell-
                                                                           schaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter
In Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                   mbH v Commission of the European Communities
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,
Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marguit Capus-Leelare, 117 Avenue Gaston                                              (Case C-349/99 P)
Diderich — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
16 March 1999 in Case T-147/98 Gluiber v Council and                                                (2000/C 20/14)
Commission (not published in the European Court Reports),
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being the Council of the European Union and the                An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of
Commission of the European Communities — the Court (First                  the European Communities on 22 September 1999 by the
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,                Commission of the European Communities against the order
D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,             made on 14 September 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98
14 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher


C 200/56              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-58/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-25/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/103)                                                    (2001/C 200/105)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            By order of 15 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-58/00: (reference for a preliminary          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Leopold Hein v        the register of Case C-25/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, Landesstelle Salz-       from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
burg.                                                               Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 v Hôtel Plaza SpA.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-247/00 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-375/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/104)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice                               (2001/C 200/106)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-247/00: Commission of the European           By order of 18 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Portuguese Republic.                                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-375/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case C-473/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 15 December 2000, rectified by a judgment of 26 January 2001, in the case of Codifis SA against Jean Louis Fredout

text:
C 61/6                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
—    In holding that the jurisprudence characterising anti-             Does that requirement of the system of consumer protection
     dumping measures as legislative acts involving choices of          laid down by the directive that interpretation is to be in
     economic policy concerned cases ‘radically different’ from         conformity require a national court, when hearing an action
     the present case, and in thereby holding that a mere               for payment brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer
     infringement of Community law would suffice to give                with whom he has contracted, to set aside an exceptional
     rise to liability under Article 288 EC.                            procedural rule, such as that in Article L 311-37 of the
                                                                        Consumer Code, in so far as it prohibits the national court,
—    In holding that the October 1997 report prima facie                either on the application of the consumer or of its own
     suggested that the Respondent had complied with its                motion, from annulling any unfair clause which vitiates the
     undertaking and in holding therefore that;                         contract where the latter was made more than two years before
                                                                        the commencement of proceedings and in so far as it thereby
     a)     the Commission’s reaction in amending the report            permits the seller or supplier to rely in law on those clauses
            was disproportionate, and                                   and to base its action upon them?
     b)     the Commission had committed an error which                 (1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.
            would not have been made had it exercised ordinary
            care and diligence.
—    In holding that the Respondent had shown reasonable
     diligence in mitigating the extent of the damage it had
     claimed to have suffered.                                          Appeal brought on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France
                                                                        SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
—    In holding that the Commission unjustifiably delayed in            against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by
     adopting the necessary measures to restore the Respon-             the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     dent’s undertaking and consequently holding that the               European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia
     Commission should bear full responsibility for the                 Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Auto-
     Respondent’s loss of profit as from the end of January             mobiles SA and the Commission of the European Com-
     1998.                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case C-1/01 P)
(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999, p. 21.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/12)
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
                                                                        by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia Motor
                                                                        France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                ties on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 15 December                Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA, represented by
2000, rectified by a judgment of 26 January 2001, in the                J-C. Fourgoux of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address
        case of Codifis SA against Jean Louis Fredout                   for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                        Béatrix de Bourbon.
                         (Case C-473/00)                                The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          (2001/C 61/11)                                      26 October 2000(1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1998, and
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(District Court), Vienne, of 15 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2000, and rectified by a
judgment of 26 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the            Pleas in law and main arguments
case of Codifis SA v Jean Louis Fredout on the following
question:                                                               —     Infringement of fundamental rights: after dismissing the
                                                                              plea alleging breach of the requirement of a reasonable
                                                                              period [within which the administrative procedure must
Given that the protection under Council Directive 93/13/EEC                   be completed], necessary to ensure fair legal process,
of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)                     which constitutes a fundamental right, the Court of First
implies that a national court, applying provisions of national                Instance admitted that it was entitled to consider of its
law previous or subsequent to that directive, is to interpret                 own motion the question of infringement of essential
them so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose               procedural requirements and of the procedural guarantees
of the latter;                                                                conferred by Community law, but decided not to do so.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2002 in Case C-29/99: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (International agreements — Convention on Nuclear Safety — Accession decision — Compatibility with the Euratom Treaty — External competence of the Community — Articles 30 to 39 of the Euratom Treaty)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 19/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Articles 7, 14, 16(1) and (3) and 17 to 19 of that convention
                                                                                are not referred to therein;
                       of 10 December 2002                                   2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                             3.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
in Case C-29/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.
            ties v Council of the European Union ( 1)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
(International agreements — Convention on Nuclear Safety
— Accession decision — Compatibility with the Euratom
Treaty — External competence of the Community —
             Articles 30 to 39 of the Euratom Treaty)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2003/C 19/01)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                  of 12 December 2002
                                                                             in Case C-470/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien: Universale-
                                                                             Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hinteregger & Söhne
In Case C-29/99, Commission of the European Communities                      Bauges. mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN Hoch- und
(Agents: T. F. Cusack and L. Ström) v Council of the European                Tiefbau GmbH, v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, F. Anton and A. P. Feeney):                                                    GesmbH ( 1)
Application for annulment in part of the Council Decision of
7 December 1998 approving the accession of the European
                                                                             (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Defi-
Atomic Energy Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention,                    nition of ‘contracting authority’ — Body governed by public
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  law — Restricted procedure — Rules for weighting of
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents
                                                                             criteria for selecting candidates invited to tender — Adver-
of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                      tisement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von
                                                                                relating to public procurement — Time-limits for review)
Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in                                                   (2003/C 19/02)
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.     Annuls the third paragraph of the declaration made by the             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       European Atomic Energy Community according to the pro-                                     in the European Court Reports)
       visions of Article 30(4)(iii) of the Nuclear Safety Convention,
       which is attached to the Council Decision of 7 December 1998
       approving the accession of the European Atomic Energy                 In Case C-470/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
       Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention, in so far as              EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for


title: Case C-236/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-236/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/81)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.07.2006.


title: Communication from the Commission — State aid — Publication of existing State aid measures in Croatia in the agriculture sector

text:
               20.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/11

         COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
   State aid — Publication of existing State aid measures in Croatia in the agriculture sector
   2014/C 414/08
   In accordance with the procedure laid down in point 3(b) of Annex IV to the Accession Treaty, Croatia informed the Commission within four months of its accession of the State aid measures that it wished to be regarded as existing aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) until the end of the third year following its accession. Under the same provision, the Commission is required to publish a list of such aid.
   The list of existing State aid measures in Croatia is hereby published in the official language of Croatia.
   The full text of the measures has been published on the following website:
   http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/stateaid/index_en.htm
   Under no circumstances is this publication to be taken as representing the Commission’s official view that these measures meet all other conditions set out in the TFEU and Accession Treaty, and in particular that these measures were implemented by Croatia prior to its accession and that they continue to apply.

               1.

               Plaćanja za iznimno osjetljive sektore (mliječne krave, krmače, šećemu repu, maslinovo ulje, duhan).

               2.

               Dodjela prava na godišnju potrošnju plinskog ulja obojanog plavom bojom za namjene u poljoprivredi, ribolovu i akvakulturi.

               3.

               Vijeće za istraživanja u poljoprivredi – sufinanciranje razvojnih i primijenjenih istraživanja u poljoprivredi i ruralnim područjima.

               4.

               Sufinanciranje rada uzgojnih udruženja.

               5.

               Sufinanciranje selekcijskog rada uzgojnih organizacija.

               6.

               Sufinanciranje udruge Sinjska alka.

               7.

               Referentni laboratorij za mlijeko.

               8.

               Katastar pčelinjih paša.

               9.

               Državna ergela Ðakovo i Lipik.

               10.

               Potpora za očuvanje izvornih i zaštićenih vrsta i kultivara poljoprivrednog bilja.

               11.

               Osiguranje od mogućih šteta u proizvodnji u poljoprivredi.

               12.

               Potpora za ekološku poljoprivrednu proizvodnju.

               13.

               Potpora za integriranu poljoprivrednu proizvodnju.

               14.

               Potpora za područja s tezim uvjetima gospodarenja u poljoprivredi.

               15.

               Potpora za organizaciju manifestacija.

               16.

               Potpora za očuvanje izvornih i zaštićenih pasmina domaćih životinja.

               17.

               Program posebnih nadzora štetnih organizama bilja u 2013. godini – 2. dio: Štetni organizmi za koje se poseban nadzor provodi zbog pojave u šumskim sastojinama i na poljoprivrednim kulturama od gospodarskog interesa RH.

               18.

               Projekt tehničke suradnje IAEA, FAO/IAEA TCP RER 5018: Suzbijanje sredozemne voćne muhe (Ceratitis capitata) SIT tehnikom (Sterile Insect Technique) na području doline Neretve za razdoblje 2012./2013.

               19.

               Postojeće državne potpore u poljoprivredi jedinica lokalne, područne (regionalne) samouprave.

               20.

               Jamstveni program ‘Poljoprivrednici’ – Hrvatska agencija za malo gospodarstvo i investicije (HAMAG INVEST).

               21.

               Programi kreditiranja – Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvoj (HBOR).


title: Case C-468/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word mark MOL Blue Card — Opposition — Refusal to register)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/30

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA
   (Case C-468/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark MOL Blue Card - Opposition - Refusal to register))
   2014/C 315/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (represented by: K. Szamosi, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, abogados)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-118/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG (Request for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Paid annual leave — Allowance in lieu in the event of death)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG
   (Case C-118/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Paid annual leave - Allowance in lieu in the event of death))
   2014/C 282/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gülay Bollacke

      Defendant: K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave is lost without conferring entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave outstanding, where the employment relationship is terminated by the death of the worker. Receipt of such an allowance is not to be dependent on a prior application by the interested party.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-75/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Probst v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Request for re-examination — Material new facts — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/56

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Probst v Commission
   (Case F-75/13) (1)

   ((Staff cases - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Request for re-examination - Material new facts - Action manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 421/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Norbert Probst (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: initially, D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and subsequently by D. Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to grant the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Probst shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 21/09/2013, p. 34.


title: Case T-567/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/39

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-567/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               declare the appeal founded;

               —

               accordingly, annul the order of 9 October 2008 in Case F-5/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the applicant seeks annulment the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors dismissing, as partially inadmissible and partially unfounded, the action for, first, annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade A*11 for the 2005 promotion procedure and, second, damages.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant puts forward four grounds of appeal:

               —

               distortion of the application and the reply inasmuch as the judgment under appeal replaces a plea alleging that there was no decision by the appointing authority, implying a total lack of motivation, by a completely different plea;

               —

               disregard and/or distortion of the evidence, the Tribunal having excluded it;

               —

               wrong attribution of the burden of proof inasmuch as the Tribunal should have required proof of the defendant's allegations;

               —

               breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence concerning the order that the appellant pay the costs at first instance.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-152/00: E v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Candidacy rejected — Infringement of the vacancy notice — Manifest error of assessment — Discrimination — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 3/30                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 3 October 2001                                                        of 19 September 2001
in Case T-140/00: Zapf Creation AG v Office for Harmon-
                                                                          in Case T-152/00: E v Commission of the European
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                Communities (1)
                             (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — ‘New Born Baby’ — Absolute                        (Officials — Candidacy rejected — Infringement of the
grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation               vacancy notice — Manifest error of assessment — Discrimi-
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                                     nation — Misuse of powers)
                           (2002/C 3/51)                                                              (2002/C 3/52)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-140/00: Zapf Creation AG, established in Rödental
(Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, avocat, with an                  In Case T-152/00: E, a member of the temporary staff of
address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmon-             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                  Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden, Avocat, with an
(OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen, A. von Mühlendahl and C. Røhl                address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
Søberg) — action brought against the decision of the Third                the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall)
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           — first an application for annulment of the rejection of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 March 2000                  applicant’s candidacy for the post of head of ‘Mediterranean’
(Case R 348/1999-3) relating to the registration of ‘New Born             unit, Directorate ‘International role’ of the ‘Science, research
Baby’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance             and development’ Directorate General and of the appointment
(Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili            of P to that post and, secondly, a claim for damages allegedly
and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,              caused by those two decisions — the Court of First Instance
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 October 2001, in             (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President,
which it:                                                                 A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
                                                                          the Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 September 2001, in
                                                                          which it:
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 21 March 2000 (Case R 348/1999-3);                      1.    dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the     2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      applicant.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2002 in Case T-173/00: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Colour (shade of orange) — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 323/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.12.2002
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 17 October 2002                                                           of 9 October 2002
                                                                          in Case T-173/00: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonis-
in Case T-98/00: Linde AG v Commission of the European                    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          Communities (1)                                                                (OHIM) ( 1)
(State aid — Definition — Advantage — Normal commer-                      (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
 cial transaction — Rational operator in a market economy)                Colour (shade of orange) — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                                Distinctive character — Statement of reasons)
                          (2002/C 323/46)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/47)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-98/00, Linde AG, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-                In Case T-173/00, KWS Saat AG, established in Einbeck
any), represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch, lawyers,                 (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger, lawyer, with an
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                     address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
D. Plessing, J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig), v Commission of the              in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and K.-                    (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly, J. Miranda de Sousa and
D. Borchardt): Application for partial annulment of Com-                  A. Di Carlo): Action brought against the decision of the Second
mission Decision 2000/524/EC of 18 January 2000 on the                    Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
State aid granted by Germany to Linde AG (OJ 2000 L 211,                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 April 2000
p. 7), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended               (Case R 282/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Second
Composition), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-              Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                  rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October
judgment on 17 October 2002, in which it:                                 2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.     Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
1.     Annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/524/                  for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       EC of 18 January 2000 on the State aid granted by Germany                 Designs) of 19 April 2000 (Case R 282/1999-2) in regard
       to Linde AG;                                                              to services in Class 42;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of       2.     Dismisses the remainder of the action;
       the applicant;
                                                                          3.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and two thirds of the
3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.             costs incurred by the defendant. The defendant shall bear one
                                                                                third of its costs.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.


title: Case T-265/08: Action brought on 4 July 2008 — Germany v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/56

         Action brought on 4 July 2008 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-265/08)
   (2008/C 223/99)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region Thuringia in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision, the Commission, reduced the financial assistance from the ERDF for the operational programme in the Objective 1 region Thuringia in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999).
   The applicant relies on four grounds in support of its action.
   Firstly, it complains that the Commission did not correctly assess important elements of fact in connection with priority axis 2.1 of the operational programme at issue (support measures for small and medium-sized enterprises: support for productive investment).
   Second, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) since no irregularities within the meaning of that provision have occurred. In that connection, it argues, in particular, that that provision does not permit the Commission to make financial corrections for administrative errors or allegedly inadequate systems of administration or supervision.
   In addition, the applicant, argues that the Commission is not permitted to carry out extrapolated financial corrections under Regulation No 4253/88, since Article 24 of that provision refers to concrete cases and assistance which may be expressed in figures and not to hypothetical conclusions of systematic misadministration drawn on the basis of an administrative error which has been discovered.
   Finally, the applicant complains that there is an infringement of Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 even if it is accepted that extrapolated financial corrections are permitted inasmuch as the extrapolations are erroneous. It argues in that connection that the Commission should not have emphasised extrapolations based on the analysis of weak points by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, that the Commission is partly to blame for the matters of which it complains and that the extrapolations at issue infringe the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case C-200/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 April 2011 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 February 2011 in Case T-3/09 Italian Republic v European Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/15

         Appeal brought on 28 April 2011 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 February 2011 in Case T-3/09 Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-200/11 P)
   2011/C 204/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato de lo Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-3/09 and, ruling on the substance, annul the Commission’s Decision of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/2004 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding, registered as number C(2008) 6015 final.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Italian Republic has lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice against the judgment delivered on 3 February 2011 in Case T-3/09, in which the General Court of the European Union dismissed Italy's action against the Commission's decision of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/2004 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding, registered as number C(2008) 6015 final, notified to the Italian Republic on 22 October 2008 by note of 22 October 2008 No SG-Greffe (2008) D/206436.
   In support of its appeal, the Italian Republic relies on the following grounds.
   First ground: error as to the facts and breach of Articles 87(1) and 88(3) EC and Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004. (2)

   By the 2008 Finance Law, Italy intended simply to allocate additional funds for the aid to support shipbuilding provided for in the 2004 Finance Law and the Ministerial Decree of 2 February 2004, which had already been authorised by the Commission on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 (3) (‘the TDM Regulation’), without changing the conditions on which the aid itself was granted or the undertakings and types of contract which could benefit from it. In fact, the funds were exhausted because more applications for aid were submitted than was anticipated. Due to its intrinsic structure, it is not possible to predetermine the total amount of such aid; therefore, if additional funds are granted for such aid, that cannot entail a substantial amendment of the aid that has already been authorised, that is, it cannot constitute new aid. The General Court erred in failing to take account of those matters.
   Second ground: breach of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002.
   The Commission was of the view that the 2008 Finance Law constituted new aid because the scheme provided for in the TDM Regulation expired on 31 March 2005 and was no longer applicable after that date. That is not correct, because that date simply referred to the deadline for the signature of shipbuilding contracts which could be subsidised; however, the regulation went on to provide that the aid was to be granted to undertakings which delivered the ships in question within three years from the date of signing the final contract (which could be extended for no more than three years). The regulation could therefore be applied to such contracts at least until 31 March 2008. The 2008 Finance Law, which was approved on 24 December 2007, is in fact a measure which gives effect to the regulation and is designed to enable aid to be paid in respect of all contracts signed before 31 March 2005. Accordingly, the legal basis for the 2008 Finance Law is the TDM Regulation, which the Commission should have applied to authorise it. The General Court erred in finding that, after 31 March 2005, the Commission ceased to have any power to assess measures relating to shipbuilding on the basis of the TDM Regulation, even if those measures related to contracts signed before 31 March 2005.
   Third ground: breach of Articles 87(2) and (3) and 88(3) EC and breach of essential procedural requirements on the ground of failure to state adequate reasons (Article 253 EC)
   The Commission was of the view that there is no provision in the Treaty or any other source on the basis of which the aid referred to in the 2008 Finance Law can be regarded as compatible with the common market. That is incorrect, because what was at issue was the protection of the Community shipbuilding industry from Korean dumping, so that Article 87(3)(b) (important projects of Community interest) or Article 87(3) (c) (aid to promote the development of a given economic sector) and, in any event, the principle of proportionality may have been applicable: to provide financial assistance in respect of some contracts but not others because the relevant funds were exhausted would have constituted a disproportionate means of protecting public finances since it would have brought about a serious distortion of competition between the undertakings concerned. The Commission failed to consider any of those potential grounds for derogation from the prohibition of State aid. The General Court erred in finding that Italy had not put forward any ground justifying derogation from the prohibition of State aid, in particular on the basis of unequal treatment and the distortion of competition that would have occurred if aid had been denied to some undertakings and granted to others in the same situation. Instead, that court erred in finding that adequate reasons were given for the Commission’s decision.
   Fourth ground: breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment (non-discrimination).
   However, after the Commission approved the scheme provided for in the Ministerial Decree of 2 February 2004, there was a legitimate expectation that a law would also be approved the purpose of which was simply to grant additional funds for the financing of that scheme. The principle of equal treatment or non-discrimination also requires such an approach because, as the funds were exhausted, only some of the operators had received aid but not others who were in the same situation. The General Court erred in finding that it was clear to Italy and the persons concerned that the 2004 approval decision imposed a ceiling on the aid that could be granted of EUR 10 million. On the contrary, there was a legitimate expectation that all those entitled to aid would be able to receive it.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 172, p. 1.


title: Case T-689/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v Commission (Environment and protection of human health — Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temperature, in the categories of acute aquatic toxicity and chronic aquatic toxicity — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Manifest error of assessment — Classification of a substance on the basis of its constituents)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v Commission
   (Case T-689/13) (1)

   ((Environment and protection of human health - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temperature, in the categories of acute aquatic toxicity and chronic aquatic toxicity - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Manifest error of assessment - Classification of a substance on the basis of its constituents))
   (2015/C 398/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Spain); Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Koppers Netherlands BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland); Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom); Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA (Madrid, Spain); SGL Carbon GmbH (Meitingen, Germany); SGL Carbon GmbH (Bad Goisern am Hallstättersee, Austria); SGL Carbon (Passy, France); SGL Carbon, SA (La Coruña, Spain); SGL Carbon Polska SA (Racibórz, Poland); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany); and Tokai erftcarbon GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, P. Sellar and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: GrafTech Iberica, SL (Navarre, Spain) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Jacquet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high-temp. (EC No 266-028-2) as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures in so far as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high-temp. (EC No 266-028-2) as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Koppers Netherlands BV, Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o., Bawtry Carbon International Ltd, Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA, SGL Carbon GmbH (Germany), SGL Carbon GmbH (Austria), SGL Carbon, SGL Carbon, SA, SGL Carbon Polska SA, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, Tokai erftcarbon GmbH and GrafTech Iberica, SL;

               3.

               Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-2/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  30 March 2006  — Korkmas and others v Commission (Admissibility — Application for annulment — Act against which proceedings can be brought — Implied Commission decision refusing to make a proposal to the Council — Action for failure to act — Omission against which proceedings can be brought — Failure to address a proposal to the Council — Discretion — Injunction)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2006 — Korkmas and others v Commission
   (Case T-2/04) (1)

   (Admissibility - Application for annulment - Act against which proceedings can be brought - Implied Commission decision refusing to make a proposal to the Council - Action for failure to act - Omission against which proceedings can be brought - Failure to address a proposal to the Council - Discretion - Injunction)
   (2006/C 131/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Cemender Korkmas (Flers, France), Corner House Research (Sturminster Newton, Dorset, United Kingdom) and The Kurdish Human Rights Project (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by P. Moser, barrister, and A. Stock, lawyer, then by Mr Moser and H. Miller, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Boudot and M. Wilderspin, agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the Commission's Regular Report of 5 November 2003 concerning Turkey's progress towards accession, in so far as it contains a Commission decision refusing to make a recommendation to the Council concerning pre-accession aid granted to Turkey and, in the alternative, for a finding of failure to act in that connection and, in any event, for an injunction in that regard
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Cemender Korkmaz, Corner House Research and the Kurdish Human Rights Project are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004


title: Joined Cases C-352/14 and C-353/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14) v Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — Financial crisis — Aid to the financial sector — Compatibility of aid with the internal market — Decision of the European Commission — Financial entity undergoing restructuring — Dismissal of an employee — National rules concerning the levels of redundancy payments)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14) v Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Joined Cases C-352/14 and C-353/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Financial crisis - Aid to the financial sector - Compatibility of aid with the internal market - Decision of the European Commission - Financial entity undergoing restructuring - Dismissal of an employee - National rules concerning the levels of redundancy payments))
   (2015/C 406/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14)

      Defendants: Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Operative part of the judgment

   Commission Decision C(2012) 8764 final of 28 November 2012 concerning the aid granted by the Spanish authorities for the restructuring and recapitalisation of the BFA Group, and Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, which form the basis for that decision, do not preclude the application, in proceedings relating to a collective redundancy that is within the scope of that decision, of national legislation under which the compensation payable to an employee whose dismissal is held to be unfair is set at an amount higher than the legal minimum.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case T-27/00: Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli against the European Central Bank

text:
13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law relied on:        — Infringement of Article 7(1)
                                                                                (b) and (c) of Regulation
The applicants state that, in its judgment of 30 September                                                 No 40/94;
1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice,                                            — VITALITE has already been
the Court of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Court                                            accepted in 15 European
of Justice rejecting the applicants’ requests for the entry of                                             countries;
their names on the list of persons having manifested their                                              — the contested decision also
interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their                                              infringes first Council Direc-
service, as provided for by Council Regulation No 2688/95 of                                               tive     No. 89/104/EEC     of
17 November 1995 introducing special measures to terminate                                                 21 December       1988      to
the service of officials of the European Communities as a result                                           approximate the laws of the
of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.                                                           Member States relating to tra-
                                                                                de marks.
However, in the decision contested in the present case, the
administrative authority of the Court of Justice refused to take
any steps to comply with the said judgement, contrary to
Article 233 EC.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Com-
                                                                         mittee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priese-
                                                                         mann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli
Action brought on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                                     against the European Central Bank
Corporation, a company registered in the USA, against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-27/00)
                              (OHIM)
                          (Case T-24/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/26)
                         (2000/C 135/25)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: English)                       An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Committee of the European
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and
European Communities on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                  Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by Norbert Pflüger,
Corporation, represented by Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,                 Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, with an address for
Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstrasse 48, Munich, Germany.                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloys Schiltz, c/o
                                                                         Association Luxembourgeoise des Employées des Banque et
                                                                         d’Assurance a.s.b.l, 29, avenue Monterey.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Decision R 137/1999-2 of 6 December 1999 in so                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    far as the said decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal;
                                                                         — order the defendant to cease and desist from deriving the
— order the defendant to bear the costs.                                     rights or obligations of its staff from Administrative
                                                                             Circular 11/98 concerning ECB Internet usage policy,
                                                                             dated 12 November 1998 (the ‘Administrative Circular’);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                         — order the defendant to withdraw the Administrative Circu-
Trade mark concerned:           VITALITE                                     lar and inform in writing the staff of the ECB about this
                                                                             withdrawal;
Product of service:             Goods in international classes 5,
                                29 and 32 of the Nice Classifi-          — order the defendant to cease and desist from adopting
                                cation                                       rules addressed to its staff as a collective and intended to
                                                                             govern the behaviour thereof without these rules being
Decision contested be-          Rejection of registration by the             consulted with the Staff Committee, as demanded by
fore the Board of Ap-           Examination Division                         Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of
peal:                                                                        the European Central Bank (‘CoE’);
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.5.2000
— confirm that the Administrative Circular is null and void              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    due to violation of the rights of the Staff Committee, as set
    out in Art. 46 CoE;                                                  — annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 1999
                                                                              concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 14 of Council
— order the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings, in                    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case IV/M.1610 — Deut-
    particular the costs of legal representation necessary for                sche Post/trans-o-flex) and cancel the fines imposed
    the applicants, such costs to be fixed and ordered for                    thereby;
    payment by the Court.
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings
                                                                              which the applicant has incurred;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the defendant, in the event that the applicant is
                                                                              successful, to reimburse to the latter the costs of the bank
                                                                              guarantee provided by the applicant by way of security for
The applicants are the Staff Committee of the ECB and three                   the payment of the fines.
members of this committee. They seek the comprehensive
withdrawal and annulment of the ECB’s administrative circular
endorsing an internet usage policy for its staff members.                Pleas in law and principal arguments
In support of its case, the applicants mainly put forward the            In the contested decision, the Commission alleges that the
following pleas in law:                                                  applicant deliberately supplied incorrect and misleading infor-
                                                                         mation concerning the acquisition of control over trans-o-flex
                                                                         Schnell-Lieferdienste GmbH in the notification given by it in a
— By adopting the contested circular, the defendant infringed            proceeding pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 in
    the Staff Committee’s right to consultation as laid down in          Case IV/M.1447 Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex. In addition, the
    Article 46 and 45 of the Conditions of Employment for                applicant allegedly supplied deliberately incorrect information
    Staff of the ECB (CoE). The circular laid down rules and             in response to several requests for information made by the
    regulations concerning working conditions of the staff, as           Commission. For that reason, a fine of EUR 50 000 has been
    related to in Article 45 CoE, and could thereof not be               imposed on the applicant on the basis of Article 14(1)(b) and
    adopted without prior consultation of the staff committee.           (c) of that regulation.
— Moreover, the circular provides for monitoring the staff’s             The applicant contests the decision on the grounds that the
    internet usage. This potentially endangers the right of              defendant applied a legally untenable interpretation to Article
    personality of the individual employees. A prior consul-             14(1)(b) and the first alternative in Article 14(1)(c). In addition,
    tation of the Committee was thereof necessary to safeguard           the Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. The
    the staffs’ individual rights.                                       information supplied by the applicant was neither incorrect
                                                                         nor misleading, either as regards the notification of the
                                                                         proposed merger or as regards the answers given in response
                                                                         to the request for information.
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche Post
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-                       Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG
                                ties                                     against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-29/00)
                                                                                (Case T-30/00)
                        (2000/C 135/27)                                                           (2000/C 135/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche                     16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG, of Düsseldorf (Germany),
Post AG, of Bonn (Federal Republic of Germany), represented              represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian Oster-
by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, of Meerbusch, with an               rieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Clifford Chance Pünder, Düssel-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.


title: Case C-440/99: Action brought on 18 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 20/18                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
4. Where Article 10 of the Directive states that the dismissal                         of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and
     of a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is                                on fruit and vegetables and Annex II to Directive
     breast-feeding is to take place ‘where applicable, provided                       90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels
     that the competent authority has given its consent’, does                         for pesticide residues in and on certain products
     the Directive require that a worker who is pregnant, has                          of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and
     given birth or is breast-feeding may be dismissed only by                         providing for the establishment of a list of maximum
     means of a special procedure in which the appropriate                             levels (1),
     competent authority gives its consent prior to the dismissal
     which the employer seeks?                                                     — Council Directive 96/33/EC of 21 May 1996 amending
                                                                                the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and
                                                                                86/363/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for
(1) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-                    pesticide residues in and on cereals and foodstuffs of
    tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
                                                                                animal origin respectively (1),
    health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have
    recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive
                                                                                — Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on
    within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) —
    OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.                                                               the certification of animals and animal products (2),
                                                                                — Commission Directive 97/72/EC of 15 December
                                                                                1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC con-
                                                                                cerning additives in feedingstuffs (3), and
Action brought on 18 November 1999 by the Com-                                     — Commission Directive 98/19/EC of 18 March 1998
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                                  amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
                      Duchy of Luxembourg                                              additives in feedingstuffs (4),
                          (Case C-440/99)                                          the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 4 of Directive 96/32/EC, Article 3
                           (2000/C 20/36)                                          of Directive 96/33/EC, Article 9 of Directive 96/93/EC,
                                                                                Article 2 of Directive 97/72/EC and Article 2 of Directive
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                                98/19/EC;
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 18 November 1999 by the Commission of the Euro-                      2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
pean Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its                 Case C-405/99 (5); the time-limits for transposition expired on
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                     30 April 1997 (Directives 96/32/EC and 96/33/EC), 1 January
                                                                             1998 (Directive 96/93/EC) and 31 March 1998 (Directives
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 97/72/EC and 98/19/EC).
1. Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and administrative             ( 1) OJ No L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 12.
     provisions necessary to comply with                                     ( 2) OJ No L 13 of 16.1.1997, p. 18.
                                                                             ( 3) OJ No L 351 of 23.12.1997, p. 55.
     — Council Directive 96/32/EC of 21 May 1996 amending                    ( 4) OJ No L 96 of 28.3.1998, p. 39.
         Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing             ( 5) See p. 10 of this OJ.